Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86936 Case Number: LCR10978 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL & COCHRANE (D) LTD - and - MPGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 12 sales representatives for an improvement in out of pocket expenses and parity of pay rates with other sales groups.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the out-of-pocket expenses of the
claimants should attract the C.P.I. increase. The Court does not
recommend concession of the other claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86936 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10978
CC861447 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10978
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (MUNSTER) LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 12 sales representatives for
an improvement in out of pocket expenses and parity of pay rates
with other sales groups.
Background:
2. The current pay scale for the workers concerned ranges from
#10,300 to #15,468 per annum. Commission, a lunch allowance and
out of pocket expenses are also payable. The latter payment is
currently #11.75 per week for those working in the non-licenced
(grocery) trade and #15.50 per week for those working in the
licenced trade area. In April, 1986, the Union served a number of
claims on the Company in respect of the 26th wage round. While
agreement was subsequently reached on other claims, agreement was
not reached on the claim for an increase in out of pocket expenses
and parity of pay rates with other sales groups (in particular
with Showerings another salesforce in this Company's Group). On
1st September, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court and on 14th November, 1986, a
conciliation conference was held. As no agreement was reached the
claim was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 12th
January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The type of work involved for the workers in the
Company is similar in every respect to that in
Showerings. However the basic salary scale in
Showerings is higher and also is not uncommon compared
to other similar companies, while this Company's scale
of pay is not as favourable (details supplied to the
Court).
(ii) It was agreed in negotiations on the 26th wage round
that the lunch allowance be increased in line with the
Consumer Price Index. The out of pocket expenses
allowance should be subject to the same principle if
it is to retain its value. The out of pocket expenses
allowance has been payable to the workers for a long
time and subject to increases under previous wage
agreements.
(iii) Out of pocket expenses are common in such a business
and cover various items (details supplied to the
Court) on which it is necessary for the workers to
incur expenditure, in the course of their duties.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) During the last 3 years a rationalisation programme
has been implemented in the Company in order to bring
it out of a loss making situation and back to
profitable trading, this process is continuing. There
has been no price increase in the product in the
grocery trade for 4 years for various reasons and the
results of a recent survey have shown a drop in
licenced trade volumes (details supplied to the
Court). Further cost increases would affect the
Company's competitive position in the market.
(b) The other companies used by the Union for comparison
purposes are not competitors of this Company and have
trading positions and markets which are vastly
different. In particular, Showerings deals
essentially in the alcohol market, while this Company
is in the soft drinks market.
(c) The 26th wage round increase agreed in the Company was
more favourable than in the Company's major
competitors. The salaries of the workers concerned,
are well in line with those in comparable companies
and total remuneration (inclusive of commission and
allowances, etc.) is higher than in the Company's main
competitors, although this Company is not the leading
company in the market.
(d) Expenditure incurred within the meaning of out of
pocket expenses is not a regular requirement, even for
workers in the licenced trade area and rarely occurs
for workers dealing in the grocery trade, although a
standard allowance is paid regardless of the amount
spent. It is therefore in reality a 'perk'.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the out-of-pocket expenses of the
claimants should attract the C.P.I. increase. The Court does not
recommend concession of the other claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd February, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman