Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89700 Case Number: LCR12635 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL & COCHRANE LTD - and - CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LTD;CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (MUNSTER) LTD;MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 44 sales representatives for parity of salary scales with Showerings (Ireland) Limited.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties and the
terms of previous Labour Court recommendations which adjudicated
on the same claim the Court finds insufficient grounds for
altering its previous recommendation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89700 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12635
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LTD
CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (MUNSTER) LTD
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 44 sales representatives for
parity of salary scales with Showerings (Ireland) Limited.
BACKGROUND:
2. The present salary scale for sales representatives in the
Company ranges from #11,085 to #17,466. The Union claims that
this scale is substantially below those of comparable companies
and is seeking parity specifically with the scale obtaining in
Showerings Limited. which is a company within the Cantrell and
Cochrane group. The issue was the subject of a previous Labour
Court hearing and in LCR10978 the Court rejected the Union's
claim. In response to the need for an ongoing agreement from the
1st June, 1989, the Company offered the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.). The workers rejected the offer and
the Union initiated the long outstanding claim for parity of pay
scales with Showerings Ltd. The Company rejected the claim.
Local discussions failed to resolve the dispute which was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 4th
September, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 2nd
October, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 6th October, 1989. A Court hearing was held on the 10th
October, 1989. The Court subsequently requested further
information from the Company on comparisons with Showerings
Limited and this information was received by letter dated 9th
November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. LCR10978 was rejected by the members and strike notice was
subsequently served on the Company. However following local
negotiations with the Company a further increment was added to
the top point of the salary scale. This was accepted only to
facilitate the Company in the light of the financial
difficulties which it was experiencing at the time.
2. The workers concerned however have been critical of that
decision and requested the Union to initiate the present claim
for parity with Showerings Limited. There is no significant
difference in the type of work performed by sales
representatives in the two Companies, yet the salary scale in
Showerings is considerably higher. Management's only response
was to offer the terms of the Programme for National Recovery,
which were rejected by the workers. The Union estimates that
the anomaly in the salary scale amounts to #1,080.
3. Salary scales of a wider range of comparable sales
representatives clearly demonstrates that the salary scale of
the workers concerned has fallen 13.50% short of the average
salary increase achieved since 1981 (details supplied to the
Court). Even if the rates were brought in line with
Showerings, they would still be less than most of these
companies.
4. The financial situation of the Company is vastly improved
and it has just completed two very successful periods. The
full co-operation of the workers concerned was given to enable
the Company to achieve the profits reached during this time
and the Union's claim is more than justified in the
circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Showerings is an alcohol based company which holds a
portfolio of heavily branded products such as Stag, Bulmers,
etc and are widely supported by marketing expenditure rather
than sales support. It is not a competitor of the Company in
the market place. Structurally it operates almost totally
through wholesalers and therefore has low overheads. It
employs only 14 representatives to cover the country.
2. The Company however operates directly to a large section
of the licensed trade business and requires 47 people to
service its business. Structurally therefore it is
considerably more expensive in labour cost terms than
Showerings. The Company is the highest payer in the soft
drinks area, dispite the fact that its main competitor, holds
a higher share of the market. This in itself is a major worry
for the Company which is constantly trying to find ways to
make its operation more competitive.
4. 3. The Company has been unable, because of strong
competition, to make virtually any price increase in the
licensed and grocery trade for a number of years and with the
prospect of the open market in 1992 this is likely to
continue.
4. In the light of such difficulties the Company is involved
in significant programmes to increase its cost
competitiveness. As sales is already a high cost department
it is imperative that the Company does not add to its
uncompetitiveness when compared to competitors. Management's
aim is to bring costs down in line with Coco Cola its main
rival who currently hold 20% more of the market share.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties and the
terms of previous Labour Court recommendations which adjudicated
on the same claim the Court finds insufficient grounds for
altering its previous recommendation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__14th__November,__1989. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman