Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93487 Case Number: LCR14258 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CHURCH AND GENERAL INSURANCE PLC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the application of increments.
Recommendation:
5. Given all of the issues outlined by the parties in their oral
and written submissions, the Court considers that the Company
proposal, as contained in their letter of the 10th of February,
1993, should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93487 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14258
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CHURCH AND GENERAL INSURANCE PLC
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1991, Church and General (C&G) and Insurance Corporation of
Ireland (I.C.I.) became wholly-owned subsidiaries of A.G.F. (the
major French Insurer) and Irish Life, through a joint holding
Company known as A.G.F.I.L. The staffs of the two companies were
merged, while retaining their individual brand identities.
Following intensive negotiations, agreement was reached between
the Group and the Union concerning common terms and conditions for
the 700 employees concerned. The Group Personnel Policy (G.P.P.)
provides for, inter alia, the harmonisation of increment review
dates in both companies to the 1st of April. This brought forward
the effective increment date for C&G staff in two stages, from the
1st of November to the 1st of August, 1992 and then to the 1st of
April, 1993. C&G staff retain a special condition that, on
reaching their maximum of scale, they are eligible for a review
(equivalent to an increment) each 3 years thereafter.
The dispute concerns a claim by the Union that the Company gave a
commitment that C&G staff on the maximum of their scale would also
receive an increment in August, 1992, irrespective of their 3-year
status. This is rejected by the Company. The dispute which
concerns approximately 50 staff was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the
5th of October, 1992 and the 11th of January, 1993 at which
agreement was not reached. The Union sought the immediate payment
of an increment, or an equivalent lump sum as compensation for the
loss of the increment. The Company offered a compromise
resolution to the dispute which was rejected by the Union. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of August,
1993 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th of
September, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the negotiations the Company stated that all
workers would gain in some way. The 4.6% increase in two
phases offered in the Group Personnel Policy is the exact cost
of extending the C&G working-week to fit in with I.C.I. There
is no actual gain for staff.
2. From the outset of negotiations, it has been made clear to
the Company that all members of staff must receive an
increment, or a lump-sum in lieu of an increment.
3. In order to ensure their flexibility and co-operation in
the merger, C&G improved conditions for its staff. It is
unfair that the same award is not being offered to the staff
in question, who have shown the same level of co-operation and
flexibility as their colleagues.
4. In May, 1992, both parties were under pressure to reach
agreement. There could have been no misunderstanding over the
assurances given by the Company concerning the maximum of
scale staff, as both parties were aware of the issues
involved. At the time, there was a full discussion concerning
the issue at a general meeting and it was common knowledge
through the Company.
5. The Company has previously attempted to renege an
agreements (details supplied to the Court).
6. The staff in question are being treated less favourably
than their colleagues. That they have reached the maximum of
scale shows that they have lengthy service or their
performance has warranted rapid promotion. Accordingly they
do not deserve to be treated less favourably than their
colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. The alleged commitment (i.e. to pay an increment in
August, 1992 to max. of scale staff) was not given. The
written agreement (G.P.P.) simply and specifically provided
for increments to be advanced if they are due. In the max. of
scale/3 year review situation, this would simply bring the due
date nearer by 7 months and would reflect the "everybody
benefitting" spirit of the agreement but would not necessarily
apply in the current (1992) year unless the 3-year period
ended in 1992. The misinterpretation of a complex agreement
is understandable particularly as the Union case - i.e. that
increments should be applied to all irrespective of being on
max. - did apply to a small specially agreed sub group (8
staff) who were among the fifty or so early transfers of staff
in the merger of the two companies. This verbal sideline
agreement has unfortunately therefore, through
misunderstanding, been extrapolated to the wider group of all
staff on max. of scales.
2. The concession of the Union's claim would create long-term
inequities within the max. of scale group, i.e., all max. of
scale staff, irrespective of their 3-year status, would
receive an increment. Longer service staff would then be
disadvantaged in comparison to shorter term staff within the
rules to which they had all previously been subject and which
are currently still in place, unaltered.
3. The claimed sub-agreement is alleged to have taken place
verbally between two staff representatives and the then
Personnel Manager of C&G. The lengthy 3-month merger
negotiations were held jointly between the Personnel Managers
of both companies (C&G and I.C.I.) and staff representatives
of both companies, resulting in a 14-page agreement, the
G.P.P. During the protracted negotiations, each provision or
concession was jointly put forward and jointly agreed on the
two companies' behalf by the Personnel Managers. The
Personnel Manager of C&G did pre-agree the verbal sideline
concession (applicable to the small number of early-move
staff) with his colleague Personnel Manager of I.C.I. (as they
had done for all other provisions). It is unrealistic that an
experienced Personnel Manager would then, quite unnecessarily,
depart from a carefully maintained modus operandi and agree
something informally that doesn't make sense, would incur
significant cost and would subsequently cause serious
professional difficulty for him and his colleague by
distorting relativities.
4. The wider group of staff for whom this "agreed" concession
is being claimed are already highly paid staff members, both
in relation to the market and their colleagues within scales.
It would not make sense to compound this situation in a
merger, where access to the recurring 3-year above
max-of-scale review by C&G staff in itself causes difficulty
for colleagues in its sister Company, who do not enjoy the
3-year provision.
5. The Company has put forward a compromise (details supplied
to the Court) which, although preserving long term
relativities, applies to "everybody" in 1992 by bringing
forward future increments where necessary and spreading them
over a longer period. This compromise, is a reasonable and
honourable outcome in circumstances born of genuine
misunderstanding.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Given all of the issues outlined by the parties in their oral
and written submissions, the Court considers that the Company
proposal, as contained in their letter of the 10th of February,
1993, should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Mc Grath
____________________
Deputy Chairman
26th, November, 1993.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.