Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90271 Case Number: LCR12925 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GEC DISTRIBUTORS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of 8 sales representatives for the introduction of income continuance/disability scheme.
Recommendation:
8. The Court is satisfied that as concession of this claim would
involve the Company in increase in payroll cost it therefore would
be contrary to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90271 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12925
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GEC DISTRIBUTORS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 8 sales representatives for the
introduction of income continuance/disability scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 100 people at five locations
- Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Dundalk. It is engaged in
the distribution of electrical products and appliances to the
domestic and industrial market.
3. In December, 1987 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of sales
representatives for the introduction of an income
continuance/disability scheme. The claim was not actively pursued
at that time. The Union again raised the claim in February, 1990
seeking that those workers who may find themselves on long term
sickness should receive two thirds of their salary up to normal
retirement age thus ensuring continuation of pension entitlement.
4. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it already
had a generous sick pay scheme (details supplied to the Court) and
that as the claim is of a cost increasing nature it is in breach
of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
5. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 8th March, 1990. As no agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on the 15th May, 1990 the parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 13th June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The present position of a salesman is that if he were
involved in a car accident in which no third party was liable,
he has no personal insurance cover. Therefore if he was
incapacitated for a long time he could find himself dependent
on social welfare after a short period of time and maybe taken
off the payroll and suffer the loss of his pension.
2. The workers concerned are obliged to drive approximately
30,000 miles a year on bad roads in often treacherous
conditions. Therefore they are at far greater risk than
normal employees and the Union believes that the Company has a
responsibility to provide adequate insurance cover as is the
case with most good employers.
3. The Company have argued that the claim is of a cost
increasing nature and therefore in breach of the P.N.R. It is
not a cost increasing claim as envisaged under the P.N.R. as
there is no direct financial benefit to the workers concerned.
The cost of introducing such insurance cover is #2,000
approximately which should not be a burden on a major
multinational Company. Even if the Company were to cover all
of its employees it would cost #20,000 and as such an expense
is tax deductible the real cost would be much less to the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company already provides a generous sick pay scheme,
where depending on service an employee may be on full pay for
up to 9 months. The Company feels that this sick pay scheme
is adequate to cover the majority of injuries incurred as part
of the sales function.
2. If a person wishes to retire early then the Company's
contributory pension scheme provides for an early pension in
case of disability.
3. Concession of this claim would be a cost factor to the
Company. Any cost increasing claim is excluded for discussion
until the expiry of the P.N.R. in the Company which will be
August 1, 1991.
4. The repercussive effects of this claim would mean that
every person driving a car for GEC Distributors (Ireland)
Limited would have to be covered by an income continuance
disability scheme. This would present a major cost factor to
the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court is satisfied that as concession of this claim would
involve the Company in increase in payroll cost it therefore would
be contrary to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________________
21st June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.