FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FBD INSURANCE PLC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - FBD FIELD STAFF ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Issues arising from LCR 17243.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns LCR 17243 which issued in September, 2002, and in particular, part 3 of the recommendation which reads as follows:-
"At the expiry of PPF a full salary review should be carried out. In the interim the parties should agree the methodology for the review including the list of comparators to be used. If agreement has not been reached on these issues by March 2003, the matter may be referred back to the Court."
In December, 2002, the Association suggested that the Company engage a jointly agreed firm of consultants to undertake the work involved in the exercise. The Company agreed to a meeting in January, 2003, at which it suggested that a salary survey conducted by PriceWaterhouseCooper (PWC) in August, 2002, be used. The Association rejected the proposal feeling that it did not accord with LCR 17243 which recommended a new jointly agreed survey. The Association also had reservations about the descriptions used in the PWC survey, in particular a category (job code 606), and other aspects of the methodology.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The PWC survey was commissioned by management without any input from the Association.
2. Despite not having supplied any information for the roles of Area Representative, Area Manager and Senior Area Manager, the Company managed to identify job code 606 which it felt adequately reflected the position of the Association's members with regard to this role/job specification. This is despite the fact that in January, 2003, the Company is on record as stating that job code 606"is not an exact match for the FBD equivalent."
3. What is needed is an analytical job evaluation comparing the members' work with that of employees with similar levels of responsibilities and competencies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company believes that the comparator should be exclusive to the general insurance industry whereas the Association wants to broaden the remit.
2. The PWC survey is relatively recent and it is unlikely that another independent consultant could better it.
3. The Area Representative/Manager at FBD is unique and an exact match outside will not be found. The issue of job description can be resolved by way of job code 606 of the PWC report.
RECOMMENDATION:
In Recommendation LCR 17243, the Court proposed that the parties should agree the methodology for a pay review including the list of comparators to be used. It is clear that agreement has not been reached on these crucial issues and, in the Court's view, it is unlikely that agreement would be reached by further direct discussions between the parties.
The information currently available to the Court is not sufficient to allow it to make a definitive recommendation on these issues. It believes that the best approach is for the parties to commission agreed independent consultants to advice on the apropriate range of comparators, full regard being had to the business in which the company is engaged, and the range of duties attaching to the posts to be assessed. The agreed consultants should also advice on the appropriate methodology to be used in the review. This process should be commenced as soon as is practicable and the parties should seek to reach agreement on the related matters in light of the advice received.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th April, 2004______________________
CON/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.