FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK & FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SEAN COSTELLO & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Requirement for Overseas Training
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is an electrician and has been employed by the Bank since July, 1998. He is currently engaged as an Engineering Technician in the Currency Production Department. The dispute concerns the Bank's requirement that the worker attend a 3-week training course in Munich. The worker claims that for personal/family reasons he cannot attend. He is a single parent since December, 2004, with three children aged 12-15 years for whom he is the sole carer. The Bank claims it first informed the worker of the necessity of attending the training course (for a BPS1000 machine) in 2007 but that the worker has refused to attend. It claims that it has made numerous efforts since then to facilitate the worker e.g. having him attend 3 x 1 week's training but to no avail. The worker's case is that he cannot leave his three children for three weeks; he has made alternative offers such as bringing the children with him but the Bank has said that the cost would be prohibitive.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th November, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st February, 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is not trying to be difficult. He wishes to undertake the training but cannot leave his three children for such a prolonged period of time. He has offered a number of alternatives (details supplied to the Court) but the Bank has refused to accommodate him.
2. The worker cannot afford to step down in grade as was suggested at the LRC as this would mean losing his 7% differential. This would represent a huge loss to him in his present circumstance.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Bank has every sympathy with the worker's situation but it is both a legal (from a health & safety perspective) and an operational requirement that all Technicians are adequately trained to perform the full suite of duties necessary for their job, including training on the BPS machines. This training will be a continuing feature in the coming years so it is not just a one-off problem as in this case.
2. The Bank offered to have a third party intervene to try to sort out the issue but the worker would not engage in the process. There was also a solution offered at the LRC but the worker refused it.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the implications on the Claimant of Management’s requirement for him to attend a three week training course in Germany. Due to family circumstances the Claimant has not attended the training course or other such courses which were required by Management since 2007. Furthermore, Management told the Court that further similar training will be required on new machinery about to come on stream in the next few years. Management told the Court that the area which the Claimant works in as a Technician carries a differential of 7% over an electrician’s rate, as it requires work of a higher technical nature. In order to assist the Claimant’s family circumstances Management explored a number of options in an effort to accommodate his needs, however, it has not been possible to resolve the matter.
The Court accepts Management’s requirement for all Technicians within the organisation to attend the required training.
Having considered the position of both sides the Court is of the view that the Claimant should be offered a choice, either to remain in his current role as a Technician and undertake the necessary training at the next available opportunity or in the alternative to relinquish the 7% Technician’s differential rate and operate as an Maintenance Electrician, which does not carry the overseas training requirements. The Court recommends that the Claimant should consider these options and inform Management in writing of his decision within a period of two weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
In the event that the Claimant opts to undertake the necessary training the Court recommends that the parties should enter into discussions on the details of the arrangements for completion of such training and such discussions must be completed within one week.
In the event that the Claimant opts to relinquish the 7% Technician’s differential rate and operate as an Maintenance Electrician, the Court recommends that the 7% differential should be withdrawn from his pay on an incrementally reduced basis over the period from the date of his decision to 31stDecember 2012.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th February, 2012______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.