FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AXA INSURANCE LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY HUSSEY FRASER SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation R-042978-Ir-06/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant has worked with the Company (formally PMPA) since 1973 and has grown to become one of the largest Insurance Companies in the State with branches country-wide. In June 2003 the Claimant was assigned as Team Leader at their Customer Service Centre in Wolfe Tone Street Dublin next to the Company's Head Office. Previous incumbents were Branch Managers who enjoyed the status, performance related bonuses and company car, these were denied to the Claimant.
The matter was referred to a Right's Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 11th June, 2007 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"In considering this case, matters have not been helped by claims and counter claims being made by both parties. It is clear to me that the Claimant has been pursuing his regrading since 2003. He is fully convinced that it is his entitlement. On the other hand, the respondent does not accept that there is a genuine basis for regrading to Branch Manager. I believe that the Claimant has a separate and unique role within the organisation. It is worth noting that at all times the respondent has spoken very highly of the Claimant's ability but believe his role is different to one of Branch Manager. In coming to my decision, the site visits were the deciding factor in this case, I further noted that the Claimant operates within the same band of Branch Managers, only difference being he does not benefit from a branch bonus nor a Company car and also does not benefit from club fees. Whereas the Claimant's job contains elements of roles that overlap with Branch Managers or may appear to be similar to the actual level of responsibility of a Branch Manager. Running a local office differs from running the Claimant's unit in Head Office with all its back up. I, however, accept that the Claimant has certainly grown the job since he moved into it and is highly regarded by the respondent in regard to his achievements in his role as team leader. Therefore, I recommend that the Claimant receive an increment of 3.5% back dated to 23rd May 2006. I recommend that the Claimant be seriously considered for the next suitable Branch Manager vacancy".
- On the 19th July, 2007 the Worker appealed the Right Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act,1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th November, 2007.
3. 1. The Worker has responsibility for Dublin City Branch the same as any other Branch Manager in the Branch Network.
2. The fact that the Dublin City Branch is located next to the Head Office can have no bearing on the status or role of the Branch Manager.
3.All previous incumbents were Branch Managers and all correspondence that is issued from the Branch refers to the Claimant as Dublin City Branch Manager.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Initially the Claimant was reluctant to accept his new assignment. However after a conversation with the Employment Relations Manager he agreed to take up the role and pursue the matter through established procedures.
2. At this specific time (June 2003) the Worker was awarded a pay increase in the context of other Customer Service Centre Team Leaders and Branch Managers of similar Service and his initial grievance was not pursued.
3.In July 2004 the Worker raised his current grievance, that his role is in fact that of a Branch Manager as were his predecessors, the Company continues to reject this view as previous incumbents were transferred from positions as external Branch Managers and continued to hold the title on a "personal to holder" basis.. It is important to state that the Worker does and continues to do an excellent job as Team Leader.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal. In his careful and comprehensive consideration of the case the Rights Commissioner concluded that the Claimant has grown the job in which he is currently engaged and that he is highly regarded by the Company in regard to his achievements in the role. The Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's conclusions in that regard.
The Court is satisfied that having regard to duties attaching to the Claimant's current role and the grading of his immediate predecessors in that role, his claim has merit. The Court is, however, conscious of the fact that there are collective agreements in place concerning grading and the filling of promotional posts within the Company, including that of Branch Manager.
The Rights Commissioner recommended that the Claimant be seriously considered for the next suitable Branch Manager vacancy. The Court believes that this aspect of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be developed further through the normal industrial relations channels of the Company. Specifically, the parties should seek, within the parameters of existing agreements, to identify a basis upon which the claimant can be accommodated with Branch Manager grading.
Subject to this modification the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th December, 2007______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.