Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD877 Case Number: LCR11070 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B. DALY (I) LTD - and - SMAUI |
Claims on behalf of 9 salesmen for:- (a) an increase in basic pay under the 26th wage round, (b) introduction of a salary scale and, (c) alignment of salaries.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
recommends as follows:-
Pay: An increase of 5.5% from 1st September, 1986 to 31st
August, 1987.
With regards to the other elements of the claim the Court
recommends that the question of re-alignment of salaries should be
the subject of negotiations on an on-going basis. In view of the
above recommendation on "re-alignment" the Court does not
recommend the introduction of a salary scale at present.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD877 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11070
CC861924 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11070
Parties: B. DALY (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of 9 salesmen for:-
(a) an increase in basic pay under the 26th wage round,
(b) introduction of a salary scale and,
(c) alignment of salaries.
Background:
2. The Company was formed in 1984 following the amalgamation of
two companies, mainly, Hedges and Butler (Ireland) Limited and a
section of D.E. Williams, and is engaged in the distribution of
wines and spirits to the wholesale and retail trades. The 25th
wage round expired on 31st August, 1986. The Union lodged the
above mentioned claims on 15th September, 1986, claim (a) was
quantified as an increase of 9% for 12 months from 1st September,
1986. Following direct negotiations between the parties, the
Company proposed the following offer:- an increase of 5% for 12
months from 1st September, 1986 followed by a further increase of
3% for 6 months from 1st September, 1987 to 29th February, 1988.
The Company rejected elements (b) and (c) of the claim. The Union
rejected this offer and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 10th November, 1986.
A conciliation conference was held on 6th January, 1987 a date
suitable to both parties. As no agreement was possible it was
agreed that the issues should be referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 19th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Pay Increase:-
The Union have no mandate to accept an 18 month
agreement. Traditionally agreements for these workers
have lasted 12 months and coincided with the financial
year. The general operatives have just secured a 12
month agreement and the Union see no reason why the
workers concerned should be treated differently
regarding the length of the agreement.
During negotiations the Union indicated its willingness
to accept an increase of 6% over 12 months which other
companies in the industry had applied.
(b) Introduction of salary scale and alignment of salaries:
A salary scale was initially sought in 1984. This was
refused by the Company. However they did agree to
remove the differentials over a period of time and
agreement on the first took place in the year 1984/85.
A second round alignment for 1985/86 ended in
disagreement and was referred to the Labour Court
(Recommendation Number 10,290 refers). It was pointed
out that a huge differential in basic salaries existed
and that even then we felt the Company was not
honouring its previous commitment to align the basic
salaries of the salesmen. The argument cannot be
resolved without an annual adjustment or alignment
taking place. The Company should now agree to the
introduction of a salary scale. The Court in
Recommendation Number 10290 stated:-
"In view of the fact that the merger of the two
companies has recently taken place and has brought
about considerable alteration in salaries the Court
does not recommend the introduction of a salary scale
at this time."
We strongly believe that the time is now appropriate if
the continued unrest and dissatisfaction which our
members express is to be settled. We do require an
equalisation of salaries and will not accept a widening
gap (details supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
Pay Increase:
4. (i) Since the Company's formation in 1984, the gross
earnings of the workers have increased substantially
and the increases paid have been higher than the rate
of inflation. The present offer is also much higher
than the projected rate of inflation for 1987/88
(details supplied to the Court).
(ii) The Company's remuneration package (basic salary plus
bonus and commission) for the workers concerned
compares most favourably with those provided by
competing companies.
(iii) The Company's offer which is significantly higher than
the forecasted rate of inflation has been made against
a background of an unsatisfactory sales performance in
the financial year ending August, 1986 (details
supplied to the Court).
(iv) Claims for introduction of a salary scale and
alignments of salary:-
The Company is opposed to introducing a salary scale
for the workers as the Company believes that its
present method of remuneration is more suitable. The
existing system of remuneration for these workers does
not put them at a disadvantage in comparison to workers
with a salary scale. An examination of the increases
earned by the workers concerned since the establishment
of the Company in 1984 confirms that increases far in
excess of those normally achievable under a salary
scale have been achieved by them. In addition, by
operating a cash with order commission structure, and a
target related bonus system, the workers in this
Company have the opportunity to increase their earnings
in a manner not normally available to workers on a
salary scale. Salary scales do not apply for similar
workers throughout the Bass Plc Group in UK and
Ireland.
(v) Following the merger of the two companies it was
necessary for the Company to establish a salary
structure to accommodate the workers who previously had
worked with separate companies. When this was done,
the Company undertook to review the situation on an
annual basis, and if necessary, to make an adjustment
to the salary of the workers who are being paid out of
line with the general structure for sales staff.
Following a review of the situation, under the current
wage round, the Company formed the opinion that no
adjustment was necessary at this time. This view was
based on an assessment of the increases achieved in
earnings by individuals since the Company was formed
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
recommends as follows:-
Pay: An increase of 5.5% from 1st September, 1986 to 31st
August, 1987.
With regards to the other elements of the claim the Court
recommends that the question of re-alignment of salaries should be
the subject of negotiations on an on-going basis. In view of the
above recommendation on "re-alignment" the Court does not
recommend the introduction of a salary scale at present.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
19th March, 1987 Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.