Insurance salary deadlock referred to arbitrator

But they have agreed not to contest the outcome of an independent mediator’s determination.
However, the parties contend there was more common understanding between them now than in the past.

They said this time around both sides admitted the need to adjust the current salaries, but differed “in a big way” on the magnitude of the pay hike.
But unlike in the past, both sides agreed to have a single arbitrator rather than each choosing one to break the impasse on salaries.
The deadlock follows differences on the proposals the parties presented on the negotiating table, with employers offering a 2 percent increase on previous salary levels.

This would have seen the least paid worker taking home US$282, in addition to the US$30 housing allowance to bring the total to US$312 per month.
But workers’ representatives had proposed an 80,5 percent salary increase from US$277 to US$500 a month plus US$44 transport and US$400 housing allowances.
The salary bargaining was in respect of the period January to July 2012.

Workers proposed a 100 percent adjustment to US$1 000 per month for the period July to December 2012 for a gross salary of US$1 444 per month.
After failing to agree on the salary levels for the first half of the year, the negotiating parties resolved to refer the discussion to an independent arbitrator.
“At the conclusion of the negotiations, the Insurance Employees’ Association of Zimbabwe suggested a deadlock should be declared and the matter be referred for arbitration, while IEAZ reiterated they were open to negotiations.

“One more meeting should be set during the first week of January 2012 to conclude the exercise after some information on other NEC presentations,” said the NEC.
But NEC co-vice chairperson and secretary-general of the Insurance Employees’ Union of Zimbabwe Mr Moses Hunga reckoned relations had improved after both parties agreed that current salaries were low.
“Relations have improved because, if you remember, the last time we went for arbitration we were miles apart. We were not in agreement,” he said.

“We agreed that something must be done about salaries and we have appointed a third party and no one is going to cry foul. That shows we are working together. This is a year of good governance.”
Mr Hunga said employers admitted that the perennial acrimony between workers and employers over salary disagreements was not good for the industry, with both parties showing positive attitudes in discussions this year.

But he stressed the need for modest salaries in a sector that employs highly qualified staff and an industry that benchmarks economic performance.
However, employers had argued the need to align remuneration with productivity amid claims cash generation remained low in the insurance industry.