Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87825 Case Number: LCR11567 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TAYTO LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of forty four van salesmen/drivers in respect of the 27th wage round for: (a) an increase in pay, and (b) payment of average commission earnings on Public Holidays.
Recommendation:
1988
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87825 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11567
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TAYTO LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(DUBLIN NO. 3 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of forty four van salesmen/drivers in respect
of the 27th wage round for:
(a) an increase in pay, and
(b) payment of average commission earnings on Public
Holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 26th wage round expired for the workers on 31st March,
1987. The Union on behalf of the workers made the following
claims:
- increase of 6% for twelve months on basic pay,
- payment of average commission to van salesmen for Public
Holidays.
3. These claims were rejected by the Company who proposed:
- a 3.50% increase for twelve months (in line with the
increase awarded to production workers, L.C.R. No. 11389
refers).
4. This was unacceptable to the Union and on 29th September, 1987
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 30th October, 1987
at which agreement could not be reached and on 4th November, 1987.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 25th
November, 1987.
Claim (a) - pay increase:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Most settlements in the food, drink and tobacco sector in
respect of the 27th wage round have been in excess of the
Company's offer of 3.50% (details supplied to the Court). In
its submission to the Court in respect of production workers
(L.C.R. No. 11389 refers) the Company argued that due to
5. 1. special increases already awarded to those workers, with
their claim for a 4% increase they would receive increases of
between approximately 10% and 14%. The workers here
concerned did not receive any special pay increases in 1987
and the H.G.V. drivers in fact suffered a loss in some
allowances. Account should be taken of the increases granted
to production workers when considering the Company's offer to
the salesmen and drivers of only 3.50%.
2. The Company has a virtual monopoly of the snack food in
this country, is in a profitable situation and in the past
one of its major problems has been its inability to produce
enough goods to meet market demands. A 6% increase to the
workers is fully justified and a lower increase would
seriously affect the workers' position within the Company's
pay structure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Throughout 1987, salemen's earnings have increased
substantially due to higher commission earnings from
increased prices of products. The present average earnings
for a salesman are #15,600 per annum and with a 3.50% increase
this would increase to #16,146 per annum.
2. The Union has claimed that the Labour Court in
recommending 3.5% for the production workers took into
account productivity payments of #6 per week. However these
payments were for genuine productivity, rationalisation, etc.
Traditionally wage settlements negotiated for the production
workers have been accepted by all other unions in the Company
and by other factories within the Group. The Company's offer
of 3.5% for this wage round has been accepted by other unions
in the Company and by maintenance craftsmen in another
company within the Group.
3. Two other companies within the Group were recently
involved in an industrial dispute over a pay parity claim
(L.C.R. No. 11500 refers). There will be repercussive
effects throughout the Group if the salesmen are awarded more
than the 3.5% which is a fair and reasonable offer and is in
excess of the current rate of inflation and increases
provided for in the Programme for National Recovery.
Claim (b) - payment of average commission earnings on public
holidays:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Presently, van salesmen receive #7.85 in lieu of
commission for public holidays. In other companies where
bonus structures apply workers are paid average commission on
public holidays. There is no difference between annual leave
and Public Holidays both of which are covered by the Holiday
(Employees) Act, 1973. Both should therefore be paid in the
same way.
2. A trial system has been introduced by the Company of
paying the salesmen #52.00 bonus in the week of a public
holiday. However this has not worked out satisfactorily as
all calls must be completed in a four day week in order to
receive the payment. In the factory the workers receive
average bonus on a public holiday. Average commission
(approximately #20) should be paid to van salesmen for public
holidays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There is no legal entitlement to average commission on a
public holiday. While it does exist for annual leave it does
not extend to public holidays.
2. An agreement was recently made at local level regarding
public holidays. In the week of a public holiday, a salesman
is paid a bonus of #52 provided all calls have been
completed, this is paid irrespective of overtime. Any
extension of average commission for public holidays must be
deducted from the #52 bonus payment. Furthermore, any new
arrangement in respect of average commission for public
holidays must contain a clear and unambiguous condition that
the salesmen's normal weekly calls will be carried out.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that the Union accepts the Company's offer
of a 3.50% wage increase in respect of a 27th wage round agreement
with effect from 1st April, 1987 and terminating on 31st March,
1988.
With reference to the claim for average commission for public
holidays for van salesmen, the Court recommends concession of the
Union's claim on the basis that such an arrangement will not
adversely affect sales.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________
9th December, 1987.
U.M./J.C. Deputy Chairman.