LCR12988

Subject:
A claim on behalf of area sales managers for parity with sales operations managers.

Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court has
decided to adjourn the hearing until the first week in October
pending the outcome of the review exercise by consultants,
following which if requested by the Union the matter at issue will
be reheard in the light of developments which may have taken place
in the meantime.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD90323 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12988

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67


PARTIES: PREMIER DAIRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)

and

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

SUBJECT:
1. A claim on behalf of area sales managers for parity with sales
operations managers.

BACKGROUND:
2. In June, 1987 the Union initially lodged a claim on behalf of
area sales managers for a review of their salaries. In October,
1987 the Union quantified its claim as the introduction of a five
point salary scale of #19,000 to #23,000 per annum. The Company
rejected the claim.

3. The Union referred the claim to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. However the claim was not actively pursued at
that time as the Company had introduced a rationalisation plan
involving 200 redundancies. Discussions on the rationalisation
and on a dispute over the Company's disciplinary policy were
ongoing for about 18 months. The workers' claim was raised
periodically during that time.

4. In 1988, the Company applied and increase of #2,100 to the two
sales operations managers who are employed in the wholesale
division on the basis the Company says that their jobs were more
onerous than the sales managers in the retail division. In 1990
the workers here concerned became aware of the difference in
salaries and accordingly revised their claim to that of pay parity
with the sales operations managers. The Company rejected the
claim. The claim was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 9th March, 1990. A conciliation conference was
held on 17th May, 1990. As no agreement was reached both parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 13th July, 1990.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company in rejecting the claim stated that it was
adhering to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.). However the claim was originally lodged at least 8
months before the P.N.R., became operative.

2. The Company has broken its own rules by giving increases
to the two managers and afterwards trying to justify the
arrangement by changing their titles. The fact that the two
managers who got the increases were wholesale managers should
not cloud the issue as they and the retail managers were on
the same level and pay within the Company and were
interchangeable. One of the retail managers was a wholesale
manager for ten years, while others changed from one job to
the other for different periods and even now cover is given
for holidays or absence whether it is wholesale or retail.

3. The new jobs were not advertised externally or internally
contrary to established Company policy and so consequently
nobody was aware of the change. Thus a promotional
opportunity was denied to the other staff.

4. The workers here concerned have shown extraordinary
patience over such a prolonged periods in dealing with this
claim. The Court is asked to recommend that there should be
parity of pay with their two colleagues immediately, with
appropriate backdating and implementation of the five point
scale of pay claimed in 1987 suitably updated.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Up to 1984 the area sales managers had responsibility for
retail drivers and their helpers. In 1984 the Company entered
into an agreement whereby the work was franchised out and the
responsibilities of the area sales managers diminished. The
sales operations managers, on the other hand, are responsible
for all wholesale deliveries and direct supervision of
approximately 150 wholesale drivers and helpers in Rathfarnham
and Finglas. In 1988 the Company applied an increase of
#2,100 to the two sales operations managers as it considered
that their jobs were more onerous and demanding involving a
higher degree of responsibility.

2. The Company is going through a cost review exercise in
conjunction with P.A. Consultants with a view to
re-structuring for greater competitiveness. This review,
which will include all areas of the Company, should be
completed by mid-September. The functions of the area
managers will be reviewed also as part of the Premier/P.A.
exercise. In fact the area managers were invited to
participate, as managers, in the review - to-date they have


declined to do so, pending they say, the satisfactory outcome
of the claim now being investigated here.

3. The outcome of the review exercise cannot be anticipated
but it may mean proposals for major changes relating to the
area managers. The area managers declined the Company request
that they suspend their claim pending the completion of the
cost review exercise. In view of what the Company consider to
be a clear disparity in responsibility levels between the
claimants and the comparators that as an alternative the Court
recommend a deferral of this claim and that nothing be done in
the interim that might appear to prejudice or anticipate any
outcome of the review now under way.

RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court has
decided to adjourn the hearing until the first week in October
pending the outcome of the review exercise by consultants,
following which if requested by the Union the matter at issue will
be reheard in the light of developments which may have taken place
in the meantime.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



John O'Connell
______________________________
21st July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.