Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87504 Case Number: LCR11331 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.W.L. LTD - and - SM&AUI |
Claims under the 27th wage round for: (i) a wage increase of 7.50%, (ii) the equalisation of the two scales for salesmen, (iii) revision and equalisation of expenses, (iv) an additional two days annual leave.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends as
follows.
Equalisation of scales
The Court recommends that the Company concede the Union's claim in
this respect.
Holidays
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Expenses
The Court is of the opinion that the Employer's offer in this
respect is reasonable and recommends that it be accepted by the
Union.
Salary increase
The Court recommends that the Employer's offer be amended to
provide for a 5% increase for a 12 month period with effect from
1st February, 1987 and that the offer so amended be accepted by
the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87504 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11331
CC87624 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11331
Parties: AMALGAMATED WHOLESALERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claims under the 27th wage round for:
(i) a wage increase of 7.50%,
(ii) the equalisation of the two scales for salesmen,
(iii) revision and equalisation of expenses,
(iv) an additional two days annual leave.
Background:
2. The 26th round expired in this Company on 31st January, 1987.
The claims outlined above were submitted by the Union on behalf of
the workers. (Originally the claim was for 9% and 3 days
holidays). A meeting took place in early April, 1987 to discuss
the claim. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 8th April,
1987. A conciliation conference took place on 11th June, 1987.
The Company made a final offer of:
(a) An increase of 3.50% for a 12 month period from the 1st
February, 1987.
(b) Expenses The ex MNC sales representative to receive
an increase in expenses from #35.75p per
week to #38 per week (3.5%).
For other sales representatives, an increase
of #4.25 per week (calculated as 3.5% of the
higher expense allowance, plus an alignment
adjustment of #3 per week).
Agreement was not reached and on 23rd June, 1987 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 6th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
Wage Scales
3. (i) The Company has three scales in operation, one for
retail outlet advisers, and two for sales
representatives. There are presently 2 salesmen on one
scale and one on another. The Union seeks to have the
first scale abolished and the two men assimilated on to
the other scale. The first scale runs from #9,370 to
#13,778 while the other one is from #11,944 to #14,472.
The Company does in fact operate the higher scale in
two other areas where the Union has salesmen as members
and who will expect to benefit from the wage round and
holidays in the same way as the Dublin men. These
areas are Galway (3 salesmen) and Ballyshannon (6
salesmen). The second scale came on the takeover by
A.W.L. of M.N.C. (Dublin) in 1983 while the first one
resulted from negotiations between the Union and
A.W.L., when 6 salesmen were employed. Since then,
these numbers have been reduced to two who are now the
subject of the claim. The Galway scale is the scale
operated by M.N.C. Galway prior to the take over by
A.W.L. The Ballyshannon scale is also operating since
the takeover of M.N.C. there. However, the Company did
agree in 1985 to assimilate 3 additional salesmen on to
this scale when they moved the 3 from their Sligo base
(Western Wholesale) to Ballyshannon. These three also
received the benefit of the existing cash
collection/sales commission scheme which yields
approximately #800 per annum. There were substantial
salary differences (up to #2,334 per annum) which were
phased in over a two year period. Now we have the
situation where two workers, who are doing exactly the
same job as 10 others, are paid considerably less and
cannot even aspire to the same salary levels. This is
unjust and we ask the Court to recommend the removal of
this anomalous situation, and to give these two
salesmen equal opportunity with their colleagues.
(ii) Wage Increase
The Union's claim was originally for 9% but was reduced
to 7.50 per cent at conciliation. The Company had
previously offered only 2.50% but increased to 3.50% at
conciliation. The Union believes that the Company and
the F.U.E. are being totally unreasonable in their
approach to the salesmen. Increases under the present
wage round average slightly over 6%. The Union has
negotiated several such agreements (details supplied to
the Court). Already this Company's scale (at a maximum
of #14,472) is some #3,000 per annum behind the
majority of other company scales. The grocery trade
may be seen as traditionally accepting less than others
but such a differential is certainly not justified.
The Union cannot accept that this differential be
further extended and asks the Court to recommend the
Union's compromise proposal of 7.50%.
(iii) Expenses
There are currently two levels of expenses in operation
in the Company, #35.75 per week in M.N.C., and #30 per
week for all others. The Company gave a commitment in
1985 to remove the differentials "over a few years" and
adjusted by #1.50 in 1985 and #1.75 in 1986. It is
unfair that the two levels should exist. When the
Company agreed to close the gap over a few years the
Union took this to mean about 3 years. This is the
third year and the Union is very disappointed that the
Company would only offer less than half the
differential in this year. There are only two men
involved in the claim for equalisation. In
Ballyshannon, the Company has agreed to close the gap
this year, and the Union asks that the two Dublin
workers should receive equal consideration. The Union
is also seeking an increase of #2.25 on the general
level, which currently stands at #35.75. This would
bring it up to #38.00. The Company's offer is to add
only #1.25 (3.50%).
(iv) Holidays
The workers entitlement is still only 20 days, while
there is a general movement towards extra days,
particularly in relation to service. The Union asks
that the Company should extend the present 20 days to
22 days in the current year. This should not
affect the Company, as the workers generally ensure
that orders are taken from customers before the start
of their holiday, and they also try to ensure that
customers have adequate stocks to cover for such
periods. The Union believes that A.W.L., which is
owned by Irish Distillers Ltd, can well afford to meet
these claims and the workers have informed the Company
that they are prepared to take industrial action unless
there is a reasonable and positive response
forthcoming.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) BASIC SALARY INCREASE:-
Prices on the product range stocked by A.W.L. have
remained static or have declined in the past 12 months.
This has resulted from reduced manufacturing costs and
competition between suppliers. In effect, increases in
turnover can only be achieved by an improvement in
sales volumes. This is most difficult to achieve in a
market which has shown little or no growth over the
past 5 years, and with the share of the market
controlled by the multiples continuing to grow.
Competition on price is exceptional keen at present,
thus putting pressure on the margin obtainable by the
Company. Coupled with the difficulty in increasing
sale volumes, this requires very tight limits to be
imposed on overhead costs.
There is no great justification for an increase in
excess of that offered by the Company, as the level of
inflation in mid-February, 1987 was 3.4%, and recent
experience shows that this level of inflation is
declining.
(b) EQUALISATION OF SALES REPRESENTATIVES SALARY SCALE:-
The sales force comprises of two categories of employee
- sales representatives and retail operations advisors.
In 1984, a salary scale for each of the two categories
was agreed with the Union. The employees on whose
behalf this claim was made are paid in accordance with
the scale established in 1984. The Union is seeking
for these two sales representatives to be paid in
accordance with the scale which applies to only one
other sales representative in Dublin. This sales
representative has retained a personal scale which
transferred with him from M.N.C., which was purchased
from the liquidator by the Company in 1983. The
Company contends that the two sales representatives
concerned in the claim are correctly placed on the
existing sales representative salary scale, and that
the ex M.N.C. sales representative has been "red
circled."
(c) ADJUSTMENT TO EXPENSE ALLOWANCES:-
At present, two levels of expenses are paid to sales
staff. The ex M.N.C. sales representative receives
#35.75 per week and all other sales staff receive #30
per week. The gap between the two levels of expense
has been reduced gradually over the past few years.
The Company has proposed to increase the level of
expense allowance of the ex M.N.C. sales representative
in line with the wage round increase, and in addition
to this, to pay a further #3 per week to other sales
staff on the lower level of expense allowance.
The Company believe that its offer on this item is
reasonable particularly as the level of expense
allowance in both categories is generous. The Company
can see no grounds on which it should further improve
its offer on this item.
(d) ADDITIONAL HOLIDAYS:-
At present, the Company provides for 20 days annual
leave for all employees throughout the Company. This
level of annual leave also applies within the B.W.G.
Group which is the holding Company of A.W.L. This
level of annual leave is in line with normal industrial
standards.
In the present trading climate, it is not possible for
the Company to improve conditions of employment beyond
their present level.
The Company submits that it has responded in a most
reasonable manner to the Union's claim, and believes
that any cost over and above that which the Company
would incur from its present offer would prove
detrimental to the Company's future progress.
The Company therefore respectfully requests that the
Labour Court recommend that the Union accept the
Company's offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends as
follows.
Equalisation of scales
The Court recommends that the Company concede the Union's claim in
this respect.
Holidays
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Expenses
The Court is of the opinion that the Employer's offer in this
respect is reasonable and recommends that it be accepted by the
Union.
Salary increase
The Court recommends that the Employer's offer be amended to
provide for a 5% increase for a 12 month period with effect from
1st February, 1987 and that the offer so amended be accepted by
the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
Deputy Chairman
20th July, 1987
P.F./J.C.