FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED IRISH BANK - AND - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Removal of functional car.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and the Employer in relation to the Employer's proposed removal of functional cars from Financial Planning Consultants (FPC) in Allied Irish Bank (AIB). The Union contends that the functional car is an essential element of the FPC role as these employees are required to be mobile. The Union further contends that the functional car is a contractual entitlement and cannot be removed unilaterally by the Employer. The Employer rejects the Union's position arguing that the role of the FPC has evolved considerably and the majority of FPCs are now branch-based or at the very most are required to travel between two branches, if at all.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st January, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th March, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. FPCs are required to be mobile in order to fulfil their daily duties.
2. The functional car is a contractual entitlement for FPCs.
3. The removal of the functional car would cause a significant financial loss to the FPCs.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The role of the FPC has changed immensely and the majority of FPCs are now branch-based.
2. The decision to remove the functional car was taken following a cost/benefit analysis carried out in order to reduce overhead costs.
3. The Employer contends that there is no financial loss suffered by any FPC as a result of the removal of the functional car.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute, the Court recommends that both parties would benefit from further engagement, with the assistance of the LRC if necessary, with a view to reaching agreement on the substantive issue in dispute. Any matters outstanding between the parties at the end of that process, which should be completed by the end of June 2014, should be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
9th May 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.