Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93560 Case Number: AD93104 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST271/93 concerning a claim by a worker for an increase in pay due to his transfer to a new debit.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the correspondence between the claimant and
the Company at the time of his transfer and also to the
conditions applying at that time as confirmed by the Company
letters to the Court dated 23rd November, 1993, and 29th
November, 1993, the Court does not find grounds on which the
claimant's basic salary should have been increased in 1987.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Company appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93560 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST271/93 concerning a claim by a worker for
an increase in pay due to his transfer to a new debit.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker has been employed by the Company since
March, 1983 as a personal financial advisor (previously
called sales representative). The Company employs over 450
financial advisers. On appointment, each financial adviser
is assigned to a geographical area called a debit and is
responsible for providing a service to clients in that area.
2. In 1987, the worker requested a transfer to another
debit. In July, 1987, the Company granted the worker a
transfer to a vacant debit which was larger than his
previous debit but his salary remained the same. At this
time discussions were taking place on the "Field Development
Plan" which, when finally implemented, adjusted the salary
of representatives upwards, if they took over a larger debit
area. The Company maintains that the worker accepted that
there would be no salary adjustment in respect of his
transfer. The Union felt that it was reasonable to expect
an adjustment in salary in this case in line with the Field
Development Plan and referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner.
3. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on
the 23rd November, 1993 and in his recommendation (No.S.T.
271/93) issued on the 27th August, 1993 recommended:-
"that in the unique circumstances of this case that the
Union's claim is met in full by the Company without
precedent or prejudice".
4. The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th September,
1993. The Court heard the appeal on the 23rd November,
1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A salary adjustment was not due to the worker as this
was consistent with company policy and practice at the time.
2. The terms of the transfer were conveyed to the worker
and he understood that his salary would not be adjusted.
3. The issue of salary was not raised by the Union in
discussions at the time of the transfer.
4. The Rights Commissioner incorrectly accepted the
position as put by the Union that if a worker moved to a
bigger debit he received greater wages and if moved to a
smaller one, lower wages. This position did not pertain
until the implementation of the Field Development Plan in
September, 1987.
5. The worker's request for a transfer would not have
been granted if it had involved increasing his salary.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is reasonable to expect an adjustment in salary in
this case as it occurred at the time the Field Development
Plan was being discussed.
2. It was custom and practice at the time that a worker
moving to a bigger debit received greater wages and if
moving to a smaller debit received lower wages.
3. Concession of the claim will have no repercussions.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the correspondence between the claimant and
the Company at the time of his transfer and also to the
conditions applying at that time as confirmed by the Company
letters to the Court dated 23rd November, 1993, and 29th
November, 1993, the Court does not find grounds on which the
claimant's basic salary should have been increased in 1987.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Company appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th December, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P O'C/U.S. ----------------
Chairman