Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD894 Case Number: LCR12293 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LEVER BROTHERS (IRELAND) LIMITED/W & C MCDONNELL LTD - and - MARINE PORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately 25 sales representatives for an upward adjustment in their salary scale and the introduction of an overnight allowance of #10 per night.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Union should accept the Companies' offer
in relation to the implementation of the terms of the National
Plan with effect from the 1st July, 1988. The Court further
recommends that the parties should, towards the termination date
of the Plan, review the salaries of the claimants as requested by
the Union. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim
for an overnight allowance.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD894 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LEVER BROTHERS (IRELAND) LIMITED/W & C MCDONNELL LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
MARINE PORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 25 sales representatives for
an upward adjustment in their salary scale and the introduction of
an overnight allowance of #10 per night.
BACKGROUND:
2. The two Companies concerned in this dispute trade as distinct
entities. Lever Brothers Ireland Ltd distributes detergents and
toiletries and employs approximately 60 people while McDonnells is
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of food products -
namely soups and margarine and employs approximately 150 people.
Both Companies are part of the Unilever Group of Companies and for
historical reasons, salary scales for sales representatives are
identical in both and negotiations concerning pay and general
conditions of employment are conducted jointly by the two
Companies.
The last agreement between the parties expired on the 30th June,
1988. In May, 1988, the Union lodged a six point claim with the
Companies (details supplied to the Court). The Companies
responded by offering the pay terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. The other claims were rejected. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
6th October, 1988. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference on the 3rd November and on the 4th December the
following four claims were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation:
(a) upward adjustment in salary scale;
(b) increase in the annual leave entitlement;
(c) introduction of a #10 overnight allowance;
(d) an increase in the garage storage allowance.
Claims (b) and (d) were subsequently settled. A Court hearing was
held on the 8th February, 1989 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 In November, 1980, Management agreed to keep the market
situation in respect of salaries under review in order to
maintain the claimants' salaries in the upper quartile
(details supplied to the Court).
3.2 The Union has submitted to the Court a list containing
details of wage rates (dating back to 1975) of 18 companies.
The details of this list shows clearly the Companies' failure
to honour the commitment made in 1980. An analysis of the
increases will show that over the period 1981 to 1988, the
average increase has been 94.61% but in the case of
Levers/McDonnells, the increase for that period was a lowly
66.42%, leaving a short-fall of 28.19% which in monetary
terms represents #4,984. Consequently, the claimants'
salaries are no longer in the upper quartile position which
Management had undertaken to maintain but are thirteenth in
the list of the 18 Companies' rates shown.
3.3 This steady erosion in salaries, having regard to the
Companies' undertakings, has been an issue that has greatly
aggravated the normal good relations between the parties.
3.4 In the course of discussions the Union put forward the
following proposal:-
"Having regard to the present circumstances and the
constraints imposed upon the Companies by the
Programme for National Recovery, the Companies are
prepared to undertake a review in the course of the
present Agreement of the sales representatives'
salary structure which takes account of the general
market trends, that of our competitors, and the sales
representatives' position in the upper quartile. The
review will be the subject of discussions by the
parties."
It is the Union's view that this proposal was very
reasonable, having regard to the strong feelings of the
claimants. A review of the salary structure is inevitable if
there is to be any improvement in relations.
3.5 The claim for a #10 overnight allowance is made as a
consequence of the expenses involved for the claimants when
they are compelled to stay away from home on Company
business.
3.6 Expenses incurred for the provision of an evening meal and
overnight accommodation are covered by the Companies and it
is their view that this is where their responsibility ends.
It is the Union's contention that the Companies must share
some of the out of pocket expenditure brought about by the
Companies' requirements, especially for those workers who are
away on a regular basis.
3.7 A growing number of companies are now paying such an
allowance to their sales representatives.
COMPANIES' ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Since the commencement of these negotiations, the Companies
have expressed their willingness both verbally and in writing
to implement the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. However it is a fundamental clause of that
agreement that there should be no other cost increasing
claims for the duration of the Programme.
4.2 The Union's main contention has been that the salary scales
applicable to sales representatives in Lever Brothers and
McDonnells are out of line with those of their counterparts
in comparable companies. The Companies issued a statement
that they would, without commitment, consider any case put
forward by the Union on the grounds of comparability/
relativity at the end of the period of the Programme for
National Recovery (details supplied to the Court). However
this statement went on to say that a debate on the Union case
on comparability is not considered appropriate at this time
in view of the no cost increasing claims clause in the
Programme for National Recovery.
4.3 It is worth noting that in a Labour Court Recommendation
issued on the 29th November, 1983 (Labour Court
Recommendation No. 8473) the Court stated that it was not
convinced from an examination of the evidence offered, that a
case existed for a further salary increase based on the
comparability of salaries of representatives. The Companies
would contend that there has been no significant change in
the comparability position since that time. However the
principal argument before the Court is not on the issue of comparability ra
are willing to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery, including the provision for no further
cost increasing claims and the Court is requested to uphold
the Companies' position.
4.4 The Company has found no evidence to support the claim for
the introduction of an overnight allowance and the Companies
are therefore not prepared to concede this.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Union should accept the Companies' offer
in relation to the implementation of the terms of the National
Plan with effect from the 1st July, 1988. The Court further
recommends that the parties should, towards the termination date
of the Plan, review the salaries of the claimants as requested by
the Union. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim
for an overnight allowance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th February, 1989 Nicholas Fitzgerald
DH/PG Deputy Chairman