Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9133 Case Number: LCR13197 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union for the regrading of two claims inspectors.
Recommendation:
6. Taking account of the nature of the claim - (a) long service
in the grade and (b) changes in the job since the jobholders took
up the position of claims inspectors - the Court is not satisfied
that (a) is a sufficient reason for upgrading in the absence of
some agreement in principle to that effect and is not satisfied
that the changes as described (b) are sustainable grounds for
upgrading. The Court does not therefore recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9133 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13197
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the regrading of two claims inspectors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in most classes of general non-life
insurance and employs approximately 50 workers. The Company
employs two claims inspectors and the Union has served a claim on
the Company for the regrading of the workers to the assistant
superintendent or equivalent grade. The grades in the claims
department (outside of claims manager) and their salaries are
currently:
Claims Inspector/Section Leader - #12,967 - #19,229 p.a.
Assistant Superintendent - #14,570 - #22,079 p.a.
Superintendent - #16,301 - 25,754 p.a.
3. Both the workers concerned in this claim have been on the top
point of their scale since 1983. The Union's position is that
this has been an issue since 1983 and the claim for upgrading is
justified on the basis of the workers' experience and years of
service, and the job criteria and the responsibilities involved
which have increased over the years. The regrading claim was
rejected by the Company on the basis that there is no validity in
it as the workers are properly graded and in any event as the
claim was made in 1989 and is cost-increasing it is contrary to
the provisions of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.)
Agreement could not be reached at local level and on 1st December,
1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 10th July,
1990 (the earliest date suitable to the parties), however, no
progress was made and on 14th January, 1991 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 7th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company introduced scales for inspectors in 1971,
however, at that time there was no such position as claims
inspector. Outdoor claims work was carried out mainly by two
claims investigators, a claims negotiator and the departmental
superintendent. The claims negotiator from 1970 to 1974 was
graded the same as assistant superintendent, the grade the
Union is seeking for these two workers whose duties are
virtually identical to his. In addition, while the worker who
was claims negotiator was appointed to that position after six
years with the Company, both of the workers concerned have
been in the same grade for over twenty years. One of the
workers, who was originally a general inspector, has been a
claims inspector for over twelve years and has nearly thirty
years service with the Company. The other worker was a
section leader before he was a claims inspector, and has
twenty seven years' service and also holds a Diploma in Law.
2. In 1974 the position of claims negotiator became vacant
and was advertised (although not subsequently filled). The
job description for that job, however, fits the duties carried
out by the claims inspectors (details supplied to the Court).
The workers also deal with Court cases including High Court
actions on behalf of the Company. In addition, the claims
investigators jobs disappeared in the 1970's. The Company
created the position of claims inspector in the mid 1970's and
in addition to carrying out the duties of a negotiator,
inspectors also absorbed the work previously done by the
claims investigators. It should also be noted that in the
U.K. the rating of a claims negotiator is grade 9, which is
the same grading for assistant superintendents in the U.K.
(details supplied to the Court).
3. When the Company introduced the position of claims
inspector the grade was slotted into the general
inspectors/section leaders grade without consultation with the
Union. The job and duties of claims inspector has altered and
expanded to such an extent that it requires regrading upwards
and the workers' salaries are well below the average pay for a
senior inspector on the market. One of the proposals that the
Union made to the Company as a compromise was that the
inspectors could move to a higher grade after a period of 5 or
10 years. This proposal was rejected by the Company even
though it is common practice in the insurance industry. In
addition, even in the late 1970's and early 1980's the Company
was prepared to reward long service workers by moving them to
a higher grade (details supplied to the Court). Both workers
are excellent employees and have been at the top point of
their scale since 1983. The workers reluctantly accepted this
situation but they have raised the issue each year. In all
the circumstances, the workers should be upgraded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The two workers are correctly positioned within the
grading structure and salary scales in accordance with
arrangements negotiated and agreed with the Union (details
supplied to the Court). If the Company altered the
arrangements there would be serious knock-on effects for
remaining categories in the workforce. Approximately 25% of
the workers in the Company, including these two workers, are
on the top points of their scales and the Union has been
seeking for quite some time to have extra pay increases
applied to this group. The Union initially claimed long
service awards or increments for all titled graded staff on
their top points. The present claim for regrading was
originally expressed as a claim for the appointment of a joint
assistant claims superintendent and then for the creation of a
post of claims negotiator. However the Company is satisfied
that the workers are correctly graded.
2. Within this Company claims inspectors have a negotiating
limit of #20,000, beyond which upward reference is required,
and they do not have authority to authorise cheque payments.
Section leaders (who are similarly graded) have a similar
negotiating limit but have authority to authorise cheque
payments (to a value of #1,000) and also have staff
responsibilities. The Company recently agreed to the
application of a further increment worth 4% to top points of
certain scales w.e.f. 1st August, 1991. The claims inspectors
will benefit from this and there is no reason why they should
make any additional gains. In addition, this claim was
submitted in 1989, is a cost increasing claim and as such is
contrary to the provisions of the P.N.R.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Taking account of the nature of the claim - (a) long service
in the grade and (b) changes in the job since the jobholders took
up the position of claims inspectors - the Court is not satisfied
that (a) is a sufficient reason for upgrading in the absence of
some agreement in principle to that effect and is not satisfied
that the changes as described (b) are sustainable grounds for
upgrading. The Court does not therefore recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
22nd February, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.