Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86875
Case Number: LCR10933
Section / Act: S67
Parties: IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE - and - ASTMS
|
Subject:
Claim on behalf of approximately one hundred and fifteen supervisors concerning re-alignment of salary scales in grades 4 and 5.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that on the evidence presented to it
the scale of the grade 4 and grade 5 have fallen out of line. The
Court nevertheless does not consider that it has sufficient
evidence to justify conceding the Association's claim that these
grades be placed 5th in the league table.
Having considered the submissions and noting the Association's
statement that there would be no further anomaly created by this
adjustment the Court recommends that the Company increase its
offer as follows:-
a phased increase of 5%. (2.5% from 1/3/86 and 2.5% from
1/11/1986) to be applied to the minimum of both grades 4 and 5
scales reducing to 3% on the maximum. (1.5% from 1/3/86 and 1.5%
from 1/11/86).
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86875 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10933
CC861026 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10933
PARTIES: IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC
AND
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately one hundred and fifteen
supervisors concerning re-alignment of salary scales in grades 4
and 5.
Background:
2. Traditionally, pay round negotiations in the Company have
been reviewed in line with a league of twelve companies, which
includes both private insurance companies and public sector
organisations (details supplied to the Court). The Company's
policy is to pay slightly above the average rates in good
comparable employments and thus to maintain a position slightly
above the average in the league of twelve. During negotiations on
the 25th pay round in the early part of 1986, the Association
claimed that salary scales for the workers concerned were out of
line with comparable scales in the league of twelve and that there
was a serious anomaly in relation to the minimum point on the
grade 4 scale (about 5-7%) and a smaller anomaly in relation to
the maximum. It also claimed that a similar anomaly existed in
relation to the grade 5 scale and sought special anomaly increases
on both scales as a consequence. The Company acknowledged that
the minimum point on the grade 4 salary scale might be somewhat
out of line but that the maximum of both the grade 4 and 5 scales
were satisfactory. The disagreement could not be resolved and
both sides agreed that the matter should be processed separately
to the 25th pay round. The claim was then referred to the Labour
Court conciliation service on the 13th June, 1986. A conciliation
conference was held on the 19th August, 1986. Some agreement was
reached and both sides agreed to meet locally before attending a
re-convened conciliation conference on the 9th September, 1986.
The second conference failed to resolve the matter, as did further
local negotiations. On the 11th November, 1986, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on the 18th December, 1986.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) The claim is that grades 4 and 5 maintain similar
positions within the league. Custom and practice
dictates that these grades are placed fifth in the
league, on the basis that the recruitment grade is
placed fifth by agreement. The Company's offer of 3%
on the minimum and 1% on the maximum is inadequate to
maintain these grades at fifth position.
(b) The Association believe that the salary progression
within the grades should not be distorted by applying
differing percentages to minimum and maximum of the
scales.
(c) The Irish insurance industry is experiencing increased
competiveness with the arrival of more insurance
companies on the scene. This will provide increased
opportunities for staff with a number of years
experience. If the Company is to keep their
experienced staff at a supervisory level, it is
essential that supervisors' pay be brought into line
with similar grades in the market.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The variations in supervisory structure in the league
of twelve companies make it difficult to establish
valid comparisons with the duties and responsibilities
carried out by grade 4 and 5 staff in the Company.
The Company has acknowledged that the minimum point on
grade 4 requires adjustment, and believe a 3% increase
to both grades is a fair response. Whilst the Company
sees no anomaly with the maximum point it is prepared
to offer a 1% increase to both grades.
(ii) The Company as a large employer must pay due regard to
the national pay policy. The grades concerned have
already received salary increases of 3.5% and 4% under
the 25th pay round. This is as much as the Company
can justify under the prevailing economic conditions.
(iii) The staff of the Company have benefited in recent
years from the success of the Company, in terms of
salaries, conditions and promotional opportunities.
The Company's business performance in 1985-1986 has
been modest whilst costs have risen. Given this
situation the Company regards its offer as fair and
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that on the evidence presented to it
the scale of the grade 4 and grade 5 have fallen out of line. The
Court nevertheless does not consider that it has sufficient
evidence to justify conceding the Association's claim that these
grades be placed 5th in the league table.
Having considered the submissions and noting the Association's
statement that there would be no further anomaly created by this
adjustment the Court recommends that the Company increase its
offer as follows:-
a phased increase of 5%. (2.5% from 1/3/86 and 2.5% from
1/11/1986) to be applied to the minimum of both grades 4 and 5
scales reducing to 3% on the maximum. (1.5% from 1/3/86 and 1.5%
from 1/11/86).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___19th__January,__1987. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman