Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88950 Case Number: LCR12244 Section / Act: S67 Parties: STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim for the payment of bonus.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of the union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88950 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12244
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of the negotiations on pay for 1988, the Union sought
the payment of a bonus to its members. The pay package which the
parties agreed on provided for a review of the bonus issue in May,
1988. In May, the Company informed the Union that it did not
intend to pay a bonus to staff but that it would review the
situation in November, 1988. In October, the Union was informed
that no bonus was to be paid to staff in Ireland although a 9%
bonus was to be paid to staff in the UK. On the 17th November,
1988, the Union referred the issue to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference on the 9th December
failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 13th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Company has, on a number of occasions in recent years,
acknowledged the exceptional efforts of the staff, yet
despite good business results in Ireland and the UK, it is
only prepared to pay bonus to UK staff.
3.2 The principle of paying a bonus to Irish staff has already
been accepted by the Company as it paid an 8% bonus to them
in 1985. Since then UK staff have received bonuses of 6% in
1986, 10% in 1987 and 9% in 1988. In all this time both the
Irish operation and the staff have been performing equally as
well as, if not better than, their UK counterparts.
3.3 The Company has recently recruited a number of new staff
whose training and induction was left to the claimants who
also had to continue to perform and meet the requirements of
their own jobs. Furthermore, because of the 38% increase in
the volume of business, bigger demands are being made on
staff (this has meant frequent week-end working).
3.4 Bonus payments are increasingly being paid in the major
companies in the Irish insurance industry (details supplied
to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 In recent years it has been the practice within the life
insurance industry in the UK to pay discretionary bonuses.
However, this practice has not been reflected in Ireland
where a feature of the past 18 months has been Government
intervention to control wage increases and labour costs.
Bonus payments are now a common feature of the UK life
insurance salary market and as it is the Company's policy to
maintain a competitive position within the salary market,
bonuses continue to be paid within the UK. However, an
equally competitive total remuneration package is maintained
in Ireland without the need for such bonus payments.
4.2 The Company has always recognised that Ireland is a different
labour market and as such different payment and benefit
practices should operate. However, there should be the
common aim of maintaining the competitiveness of the overall
package which has been successfully achieved without the
payment of bonuses.
4.3 The Company's own market research shows that bonuses are not
a common feature in the Irish insurance sector. In addition,
the claimants' salaries are in or around the upper quartile
of those paid for comparable jobs in other companies.
4.4 The intent of the Programme for National Recovery, to which
the Company subscribes, is to constrain annual increases to a
maximum of 2.50%.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of the union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st January, 1989 John O'Connell
DH/PG Deputy Chairman