FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations R-152790, 152991 and 152969-IR-15/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Union's appeal of Rights Commissioner's RecommendationsR-152790, 152991 and 152969-IR-15/JT, on behalf of three of its members currently employed by the Central Bank of Ireland. The dispute relates specifically to the Workers' claims that they have been unfairly overlooked in their applications for a Voluntary Severance Scheme (VSS) operated by the Employer in 2014. The Workers involved appealed the decisions of the Bank through its internal appeal mechanisms however all three Workers were unsuccessful in their appeals. The matter was subsequently referred to an independent third party for consideration. The dispute was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 14th July, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"The VSS is a voluntary scheme, which is voluntary for both parties. I do not find the claims well founded and they fail".
On the 25th August, 2015 the Union appealed the Recommendations of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th October, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the VSS application process lacked transparency and consistency.
2. The Union asserts that unsuccessful applications that were not processed in a fair and consistent manner should be overturned by the Employer.
3. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking the right to have their applications considered for the current VSS albeit applicable to a different category of staff in operation in the Bank.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Employer's position that the Workers' applications were deemed unsuccessful following a structured application process.
2. The Workers' cases were assessed and wholly dealt with through internal appeal channels and an independent third party prior to referral to the Rights Commissioner Service. In this instance it is the Employer's assertion that it has acted fairly and reasonably at all times.
3. The Employer is not in a position to offer the Workers the opportunity to participate in the current VSS in the Bank applicable to a different category of staff.
DECISION:
The Court has considered carefully the submissions made at the hearing.
This case arises from the operation of a voluntary severance scheme (VSS) for Professional and Administrative (P&A) staff in place by agreement in the Bank in 2014 and open for application by P&A staff of the bank from 1stMarch 2014 to 31stMarch 2014. The Claimants in this case were among 29 unsuccessful applicants for voluntary severance in the Bank at that time. Subsequently the Claimants were among 11 unsuccessful internal appeals from a total internal appeal population of 15.
The parties have engaged comprehensively on this matter through various procedures locally and before the Rights Commissioner. They have agreed, as recommended by the internal Bank third party in a recommendation subsequently accepted by both the Bank and the Union, that in any possible future VSS which might be in place and available for application by this category of staff, when decisions are being made by the Bank as regards acceptance of applications made at that time, all other things being equal, the disappointment experienced by unsuccessful appellants under the previous scheme will be taken into account.
The Court is clear that a fundamental aspect of a voluntary severance scheme is that it is voluntary on both sides i.e. the employee is free to decide to apply or not to apply for participation in the scheme and the employer is free to accept or not to accept any application for participation which is made.
Decision
The Court rejects the appeals and upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
9th November 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.