Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95457 Case Number: LCR14952 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: VOLUNTARY HEALTH INSURANCE (VHI) (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE |
Regrading.
Recommendation:
The current system of grading posts is by agreement between the
parties, as there is no formal assessment system in operation.
There is no provision within the grading system for dealing with
situations where the parties fail to reach agreement.
In this case, the issue seems to centre around Clause 11 in the
1987 Agreement and a significant difference of opinion as to
whether the claimant's job has changed "substantially", as claimed
by the Union or that the "work methods and volumes" have changed
as argued by the Company.
It is difficult for the Court to decide definitively either way,
given the absence of a formal evaluation system and taking into
account the obvious difference of interpretation of the system by
the parties who have "ownership" of the system.
Given the above, the Court recommends that a third party, e.g.
I.P.C. be asked to:-
(a) assess whether the changes in work content are "substantial"
or changes in "work methods/volumes" as outlined above.
(b) if the changes are classified as substantial, then to decide
if the changes warrant Grade S1.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95457 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14952
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
VOLUNTARY HEALTH INSURANCE (VHI)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE
SUBJECT:
Regrading.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns the Union's claim to regrade Claims
Assessors (C5) to the next grade of Supervisor (S1). There
are 17 full-time and 3 part-time workers involved.
The Union is claiming that, following a change to the
computer system in May, 1993, the C5 workers approve their
own claims and, in doing so, take full responsibility for
them. Previously, claims were assessed by the C5 workers and
then passed on to the S1 Supervisor who had full
responsibility. Under the new system, C5 workers are
responsible for 90% of claims paid. The Company maintains
that there is no merit in the Union's claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 22nd May, 1995.
No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 4th August, 1995, in accordance with Section
26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 4th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. A document entitled "New Understanding - Participation and
Co-operation Agreement" was drawn up between the parties in
1987. Section 11 of the document states:
"Methods and Procedures will undoubtedly change and when this
happens and where the nature and responsibility of existing
jobs substantially change, as a consequence, (rather than the
work methods or volumes handled) then the grading of that job
would be by agreement".
The C5 Assessors' work has changed so much since May, 1993,
that they now carry out much of the S1's work. Previously,
the responsibility for the payment of all claims lay with the
S1 Supervisor, as they approved the payments. If a dispute
arose at a later date regarding payment, the supervisor was
held responsible. Since May, 1993, the C5 assessors now
approve 90% of their own claims.
2. Approximately 10% of claims are selected randomly by computer
to be examined for auditing purposes, thus leaving 90% of
claims as the responsibility of C5 Assessors. Each C5
assessor pays approximately #8.7 million in claims each year.
No other C5 worker in the Company has responsibility of this
level. Other C5 workers must first seek approval of an S1
Supervisor before making payments.
3. C5 Assessors now delegate their own work and ensure that all
claims that have a definite payment date are paid on or
before that date. C5 Assessors are no longer supervised by
S1 Supervisors as was previously the situation. The C5
Assessors are now carrying out most of the duties of the S1
Supervisor as appears on the job description of the S1 grade
(details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The present grading structure was agreed with the Union.
Section 11 of the New Understanding Agreement with the Union
does not apply here. There is a clear distinction between
the responsibilities of the C5 assessor and the S1
supervisor. The Company has already paid significant monies
for the type of changes mentioned under the Understanding
Agreement. In the past two years, following a job evaluation
exercise under the 1987 Agreement, 14 jobs have been
upgraded.
2. Wages and conditions for the workers concerned are very good
compared to those of workers with similar jobs in other organisations.
3. The Company has experienced severe financial difficulties in
recent years. If the Union's claim was conceded it could
have a serious knock-on effect. A possible 146 positions
could be affected at a significant cost to the Company. It
is vital that the Company remains competitive by keeping
costs at a minimum.
RECOMMENDATION:
The current system of grading posts is by agreement between the
parties, as there is no formal assessment system in operation.
There is no provision within the grading system for dealing with
situations where the parties fail to reach agreement.
In this case, the issue seems to centre around Clause 11 in the
1987 Agreement and a significant difference of opinion as to
whether the claimant's job has changed "substantially", as claimed
by the Union or that the "work methods and volumes" have changed
as argued by the Company.
It is difficult for the Court to decide definitively either way,
given the absence of a formal evaluation system and taking into
account the obvious difference of interpretation of the system by
the parties who have "ownership" of the system.
Given the above, the Court recommends that a third party, e.g.
I.P.C. be asked to:-
(a) assess whether the changes in work content are "substantial"
or changes in "work methods/volumes" as outlined above.
(b) if the changes are classified as substantial, then to decide
if the changes warrant Grade S1.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.