Bulletin
ICBC – Update on policy grievance regarding Injury Adjuster Pilot Project
March 14, 2018
To: All MoveUP Members working as Injury Adjusters at ICBC
As you know, the Employer introduced a pilot project in mid-September 2017 whereby some Injury Adjusters would retain conduct of some claims despite those claimants having secured legal representation. The Union says work on these “repped” claims is expressly not the purview of Injury Adjusters (Salary Group (SG) 10) based on the job profiles for the positions as determined by the Employer. We say Article 11.14 of the Collective Agreement is clear: Injury Adjusters working on “repped” claims have effectively been appointed to act as Senior Injury Adjusters (SG 11) and are therefore entitled to acting pay for the duration of the pilot project. (Note that Injury Adjusters who were formerly Bodily Injury Adjusters and who have been blue-circled at the SG 11 rate are not entitled to acting pay in this situation; they are already being paid at the correct rate for Senior Injury Adjuster work.)
The Employer says that work on relatively uncomplicated “repped” files doesn’t necessarily justify a higher rate of pay than work on more complicated “unrepped” files of the type that Injury Adjusters handle every day. We say the Employer has put the cart before the horse. If the Employer were to amend the Injury Adjuster job profile to include carriage of less complicated “repped” files, that amended profile would then be reevaluated under the Job Evaluation Plan. We don’t wish to prejudge whether such changes would result in any change to the salary group for Injury Adjusters. We say that what is clear under the job profiles as they currently exist is that “repped” file work is expressly not Injury Adjuster SG 10 work; unless and until the job profiles are amended and reevaluated to make it Injury Adjuster SG 10 work, the Employer must provide acting pay for the performance of Senior Injury Adjuster SG 11 work.
The Union initiated a policy grievance on this matter on September 21, 2017. The Stage 3 grievance meeting was held on October 26, 2017. The Employer’s written response at Stage 3 in which the grievance was denied was received by the Union on December 7, 2017. The Union advised the Employer on January 10, 2018 that the grievance was being advanced to arbitration, subject to approval by the Union’s internal Arbitration Review Committee (ARC). The grievance was set to be considered by ARC at its next meeting with space on the agenda, which was March 13, 2018. I am writing to advise that ARC has accepted the Union Representative’s recommendation and has approved the grievance for arbitration.
Please note that referral to arbitration doesn’t mean a grievance will necessarily be heard by an arbitrator. The Parties may engage in further discussions and reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Alternately, the Union may reassess the grievance and determine it no longer has merit to proceed. Either way, this can be a lengthy process that may take upwards of one year to conclude. We thank you for your ongoing patience and will keep you informed as the grievance progresses.
The Injury Adjuster pilot project is slated to end in the middle of this month. You can expect to hear more from us soon on general matters of the pilot project and what comes next once the Employer advises us of its intended actions.
In solidarity,
Ryan Stewart
Union Representative
