INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
FBD LIFE AND PENSIONS LIMITED
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY O'MARA GERAGHTY MC COURT)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Pay claim.
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the company since 1979 and is currently employed in the position of Financial Controller. He is a qualified Chartered Accountant. The employee states that his salary was set at the market rate in 1998, but that since then his employer has failed to increase his salary in line with current market conditions. He also claims that the Company has refused to enter into negotiations in this regard. The Company disputes this claim.
On the 8th of May, 2001 the claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th of July, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. In January 1998 the Company converted net expenses which were being claimed by the employee to gross salary, despite his objections. This resulted in a reduction to his net earnings.
2. In 1999 every other category of employee had their salary scale reviewed. The claimant was initially told that his would also be reviewed, but in June 2000 he was told that the review would not take place.
3. The claimant's workload has increased progressively over the last few years, yet this is not reflected in his salary. The Company has stated that he is overpaid, yet has refused all requests for a pay review or for mediation.
4. The Company does not have a standard by which to set the claimant's salary, yet refuses to set it in accordance with those of Chartered Accountants, as outlined in the Leinster Society of Chartered Accountants Salary Survey for 1995 to 2000. Instead the Company pays what the Management Committee decides is the market value.
4. 1. The claimant is a Chartered Accountant and the Company acknowledges that he might well earn more money elsewhere, either in private practice or by joining a firm of accountants. However, he is not employed as an accountant in his present position.
2. The claimant is a member of management and is remunerated at a level which reflects the value of his work and contribution to the company. Like other long-serving senior managers he is at the top of the market rate for the job and receives annual "cost of living" salary increases.
3. Management has not refused to negotiate with the claimant and has discussed the issue on many occasions. However, upon examining salary surveys of similar positions, the Management Committee found that the claimant is paid above the rate for the job that he carries out.
4. The Company appreciates the claimant's position and recently offered him an alternative position within FBD. Although there would have been no immediate increase in remuneration, it may have increased in time. However, he declined the offer.
Having given consideration to the information supplied by the parties, the Court accepts the Company's position regarding the system of review of the claimant's remuneration. However, the Court recommends that his salary should be increased to £50,000 (63,486.90 Euro) with effect from his last review date, 1st January, 2001, as the reviews did not in general reflect as a minimum, movements in wage rounds generally. The Court recommends that future salary reviews should reflect no less than the terms of PPF or its successors.
The Court is critical of the Company's lack of communication with the claimant regarding the level of his remuneration and suggests that this should be addressed for the future.
The Court also recommends that the parties should discuss the potential for further development, for the claimant, within the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd August, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.