Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91378 Case Number: LCR13386 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION |
Dispute concerning a revised salary scale for the Companies sales representatives.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court recommends as follows.
1. That the new scale and lump sum payments for Sales
Representatives as proposed by the Company be
implemented.
2. That the Daily report sheets be completed as required by
the Company subject to 3 below.
3. That the mileometer readings as required on a daily basis
be recorded on the introduction and operation of Hand
held Terminals.
4. That on the basis of the above being accepted the Company
negotiate a date for the implementation of the payment
under Clause 3 of the Pay Proposals of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91378 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13386
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED
GRANTS OF IRELAND (SALES) LIMITED
and
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a revised salary scale for the Companies
sales representatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Showerings (Ireland) Limited is involved in the
processing, manufacturing and bottling of ciders, perrys,
fruit juices and soft drinks at its Clonmel Plant. Grants of
Ireland also based in Clonmel and Dublin are importers and
distributors of wines and spirits. In addition it also
bottles liquers and some wines and spirits. The total range
of both companies, products are distributed nationally from
Clonmel and Dublin. Grants of Ireland (Sales) Limited is the
marketing and sales arm of Grants of Ireland and is based at
Chapelizod, Dublin.
2. In October, 1990 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of 24
sales representatives for a number of items, including a
revised salary scale. The Union sought to have the number of
points on the salary scale reduced and the maximum and minimum
points increased. The claim was rejected by the Company. At
present a 16 point scale exists ranging from £12,780 to
£18.519.
3. Further discussions at local level resulted in the Company
offering a 15 point scale, £14,390 to £21,140 which
incorporated the 4% 1st phase of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and incentive earnings of £890.
In return the Company sought telephone selling, hand held
terminals and some changes in administrative practices
(details supplied to the Court). Assimilation would be to the
nearest monetary point, plus a lump sum of £500. The Union
rejected the Company's offer and sought assimilation at the
next point plus one and a scale with a better maximum and
exclusive of incentives. The Union then amended its claim to
a 14 point scale of £13,500 to £20,650 inclusive of the 4%
P.E.S.P. but exclusive of incentives.
4. As no agreement was reached at local level discussions the
issues were referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
25th March, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held on 19th
April, 1991 and 17th July, 1991. Agreement was not possible
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 by the Labour Relations
Commission. The parties agreed to the referral. In June,
1991 the Company amended its offer to a 15 point scale of
£14,870 to £21,590. Following a meeting of the workers
concerned the Union sought the 3% available under Clause 3 of
the P.E.S.P. which deals with local bargaining effective in
year two (1/12/91), and the removal of proposals under
administrative practices in return for acceptance of the
Company's scales inclusive of incentives. These proposals
were rejected by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of telephone selling was considered previously
in 1980/1981 and unanimously rejected by the workforce (only
one other company has telephone selling). However the Union
is prepared to consider telephone selling. This will be a
major exercise for the workers who will be heavily involved in
implementing the system and undertaking the extra work
required. The workers have agreed to hand held terminals.
2. The Union's claim is based on the anomalies which exist
with other companies (details supplied to the Court).
3. The changes in administrative practices represent extra
work with no benefits to either side.
4. Inclusion of incentives is only a form of window dressing
as these payments are guaranteed anyway.
5. Acceptance of the Company's proposals would contribute
greatly to its productivity and involve extra work for the
sales representatives. Accordingly the Court is asked to
recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer is generous and has met the Union's
aspirations within a minimum/maximum new scale.
2. The changes sought are in accordance with good Management
practices (details supplied to the Court).
3. Both Companies are multi-unionised and discussions on the
3% under local bargaining of P.E.S.P. will take place with the
respective Unions at the appropriate time.
4. The proposals have major cost implications for the Company
and it is not unreasonable that some changes should be sought
in order to defray these costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court recommends as follows.
1. That the new scale and lump sum payments for Sales
Representatives as proposed by the Company be
implemented.
2. That the Daily report sheets be completed as required by
the Company subject to 3 below.
3. That the mileometer readings as required on a daily basis
be recorded on the introduction and operation of Hand
held Terminals.
4. That on the basis of the above being accepted the Company
negotiate a date for the implementation of the payment
under Clause 3 of the Pay Proposals of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
28th August, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.