FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AIB GROUP - AND - FINANCIAL SERVICES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Non-payment of relocation payment and re-introduction of rationalisation payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27 October 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30 November 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The relocations had an adverse impact on the personal and financial well-being of the staff.
2. These took the form of increased transport costs and increased time spent travelling to and from the new work locations.
3. The AIB Group is a very profitable Bank. The Union seeks to have it recognise and compensate staff for the adverse impact these changes will have on their personal and family finances and on their work life/balance.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has never paid rationalisation payments in First Trust Bank.
2. The Bank has advised the Union that relocation payments are no longer appropriate in any circumstances. It further submits that they are indefensible where staff are required to travel small distances to new and better working facilities.
3. Staff transfer between Branches is a routine feature of employment in the Bank for which no compensation is paid.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court has asked both sides to make further submissions in respect of the claim for the re-introduction of rationalisation payments before it regarding First Trust Bank. Accordingly the Court makes no recommendation on this matter at this time.
On the second matter before it the Court finds that the parties concluded an Agreement in 2006 that governs arrangements for the relocation of a category of staff within the Group. The parties continued to apply that Agreement up to 2011. In 2011 Management notified the Union that it was “no longer appropriate, given our current financial circumstances and heavy reliance on State support, to make such payments to staff moving into or out of our Head Office buildings. Please let me know if you wish to discuss this matter directly and I will make the necessary arrangements.”
Management relies on that letter to dispose of this claim.
The Union seeks to rely on the 2006 Agreement which it maintains still binds each side.
The Court finds that Management’s letter of 2011 sets out an intention to withdraw but does not constitute an actual withdrawal from the Agreement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the terms of the 2006 Agreement remain in force.
The Court further finds that a number of emergency measures were adopted across the public and private sectors during the financial crisis. Pay and conditions of employment that existed prior to the crisis are now in the process of being restored on a phased and measured basis as the circumstances of the State and individual companies improve. The Bank is no different to other sectors of the economy and employees that co-operated with adjustments to pay and conditions of employment during the crisis are entitled to have those progressively reversed as circumstances improve.
In that context, the Court, in line with its longstanding practice of upholding agreements freely entered into between parties, finds that the 2006 Agreement remains in force until it is varied by agreement between the parties. In this case no such agreement to vary it exists.
Accordingly, the Court finds and recommends that the terms of the 2006 Agreement, including the compensations levels set out therein, be applied in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12 December 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.