Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88373 Case Number: LCR11986 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TREBOR (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for the introduction of a new wage scale and garage allowance for sales representatives.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
finds as follows:-
(a) Salary Scale:- In the present circumstances the Court
does not recommend concession of the
claim for a revised salary scale.
(b) Garage Allowance:- When the Sales Representative is
required to store products at home the
Court recommends that an allowance of
five pounds per week be paid.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88373 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11986
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TREBOR (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the introduction of a new wage scale and garage
allowance for sales representatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is mainly involved in the manufacture and
distribution of sugar confectionery products throughout Ireland
and the U.K., and currently employs a total of fifty five
employees, six of whom are sales representatives. The Union
submitted a claim to the Company on behalf of its members for a
new pay scale ranging from eleven to eighteen thousand pounds per
annum. The current maximum salary scale for sales staff is
fifteen thousand and eighty pounds. The Union also claimed that
an allowance of five pounds per week garage allowance be
introduced to compensate the employees for the use of domestic
property on the Company's behalf. As no agreement was reached at
local level these matters were referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 26th February, 1988. A
conciliation conference took place on the 18th April, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 19th May, 1988. A Labour
Court hearing took place on the 9th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employer is one of the largest privately owned
companies in the U.K. and it has interests world wide. There
is a difference between the salary scale of the sales
representatives employed by the Company and the scales of
representatives engaged by companies with whom, by the nature
of their work, they would compare. It is natural to compare
salaries, particularly, when the work they do is similar and
requires no less application in the competitive field within
which they work. Details of comparable salary scales were
supplied to the Court.
3. 2. The comparators are members of the food, drink and tobacco
industry which is organised under the auspices of the
Confederation of Irish Industry and are affiliated to the
Federated Union of Employers. The work of sales
representatives is at times very demanding and requires a high
degree of competitiveness and initiative. The workers have
performed well over the years and have increased sales which
have contributed to the success of the Company.
3. The anomaly in salaries is highlighted by the fact that
the scale paid by the Company is comparable to that paid to
merchandisers in many other companies. The merchandiser
generally assists the sales representative in his work and is
regarded as a lower grade. The Union is prepared to negotiate
a time scale for the introduction of a new salary scale. The
Company has made no real attempt to examine the merits of the
Union's claim and this has led to considerable unrest and
dissatisfaction among members.
4. It is now generally accepted that a garage allowance is a
recognised condition for sales representatives and the Union's
claim, rather than seeking to create a precedent, is to
establish a condition which is common to this category of
worker. In most cases the representative uses his garage or
drive-way to accommodate the Company's car and it is felt that
the Company should bear some of the cost for this facility.
The garage or some part of the home is, from time to time,
used as a convenient storage point for the Company's product.
The Court has recommended in favour of the introduction of a
garage/storage allowance in previous similar claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is presently working a three day week and this
will continue for some months at least. Volumes are down for
many reasons including competition, the various lottories,
etc. The Company's products are largely at the cheap end of
the scale including many one penny products. These account
for about fifty six per cent of business. The profit on these
is very marginal. The demands in the market place continue to
focus on cheaper products. This puts a continuous strain on
management to deliver.
2. The comparators used by the Union are totally misleading
as these are huge operations which operate at the higher end
of the market and all of them sell prominent brand names. The
more appropriate comparisons (details supplied to the Court)
are non-unionised operators who pay their representatives
mainly on a commission basis. Many wholesalers are importing
the Company's products from the U.K. cheaper than the Company
can supply them. This is a major problem for the Company
particularly as it is trying to protect employment and it has
traded at a loss this year to date. The sales representatives
must be well aware of the Company's difficulties. The Company
has had to reduce its price on a number of its products in
order to compete with cheap imports.
4. 3. The Company recently received applications from people
employed by a major competitor, who were on a far less
favourable remunerative package than that enjoyed by the
Company's staff. The Company has implemented the terms of the
Plan for National Recovery for all categories of staff and if
this claim were conceded the repercussive effects would be far
reaching within the Company. Details of the Company's
remunerative package have already been supplied to the Court
and given its size and market position it considers the
package reasonable and rejects the Union's claim for a salary
scale and garage allowance.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
finds as follows:-
(a) Salary Scale:- In the present circumstances the Court
does not recommend concession of the
claim for a revised salary scale.
(b) Garage Allowance:- When the Sales Representative is
required to store products at home the
Court recommends that an allowance of
five pounds per week be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___4th____August,___1988. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman