Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91224 Case Number: LCR13275 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: W. & C. MCDONNELL LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for a salary increase on behalf of sales representatives.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the written and
oral submissions made to it. The Court was presented with
conflicting evidence as to the compilation of the list of similar
employments used for the purpose of determining the salary of the
claimants over the last decade. The Court accordingly decided to
compile a list of what, in its view are good comparable
employments. Based on this list and accepting that there was a
previous understanding between the parties that the claimant's
salary should be in the upper range the Court considers a maximum
salary of #19,658 p.a. as reasonable in the circumstances.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91224 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13275
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: W. & C. McDONNELL LIMITED
LEVER BROTHERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a salary increase on behalf of sales
representatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as sales representatives
by W. & C. McDonnell Limited and Lever Brothers (Ireland) Limited.
For historic reasons sales representative salary sales have been
compared to both companies. The Union is claiming a review of
the salary scale of the workers concerned based on a list of
salary scales tabled by the Union for comparison purposes.
(Details supplied to the Court). The issue was the subject of two
previous Labour Court hearings (LCR12786, LCR12293 refer). On
both occasions the Court recommended that a review should take
place. However, the parties cannot agree on the lists of
appropriate comparator companies for the purpose of a salary
review. The Union claims that according to its list the salaries
of the workers concerned have fallen behind those of workers in
comparable companies. The Company states that the salaries of the
workers compare very favourably with direct competitors. The
issue could not be resolved at local level discussions and was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission on the 23rd April, 1991. A conciliation conference
was held on the 26th April, 1991 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 30th April, 1991. A Court hearing was
held on the 2nd May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A list of companies (details supplied to the Court) has
been used since the mid 1960's by both sides on a
comparability basis. This list has been quoted by the
Company as far back as 1970. Throughout the 1970's the
Company used this list to justify its rejection of claims
made by the Union for increases in the salary scale.
2. In 1983 the Union submitted a claim for a review of the
salary scale on he grounds that the salaries of the workers
concerned had fallen from their position in the upper
quartile . This was rejected by the Company. Labour Court
Recommendation 8473 rejected the Union's claim on the grounds
that the Court was not satisfied on the evidence produced by
both parties i.e. the listed companies.
3. At a further Court hearing in 1989 the Company stated in
response to the Union's claim for a salary review, that the
Union's main contention had been that the salary scales
applicable to sales representatives in Levers/McDonnell.
They are out of line with 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. Labour
Court Recommendation 12293 issued in February, 1989
recommended that the parties should, towards the end of the
Programme for National Recovery review the salaries of the
claimants. The Companies indicated that they would abide by
the LCR12293.
4. Labour Court Recommendation 12786 dated 29 March, 1990
stated that the review of salaries take place at the end of
December, 1990. At a meeting between the parties held in
February, 1991 the Union again submitted to the Companies the
same list with the salaries which prevailed in 1980 and also
the salaries updated to their 1990 position (details supplied
to the Court). The Union also submitted graphs clearly
demonstrating that the position of the workers concerned had
fallen from No. 2 to No. 14 on the agreed list of Companies
already referred to. The Companies would not accept that the
sales representatives' salaries had fallen considerably
behind comparable workers over the past ten years.
5. The Companies at a subsequent meeting introduced a new
list, disregarding the comparability list used by both
parties for over 25 years, to argue its position. The Union
rejected this move by Management and stated that this move
was a deliberate attempt to undermine the Union's arguments.
6. In March 1991 the Companies in a letter to the Union
confirmed their new position stating that they had met the
requirements of both the Labour Court and the Union in a fair
manner. The Union rejected the Companies' position and
following a secret ballot of the membership a proposal to
serve strike notice on the Company was carried . The strike
action pending the result of a Recommendation by the Court
was deferred for two weeks from 29th April, 1991.
COMPANIES' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In undertaking a survey of salary levels the Companies
concerned had reservations regarding a claim which was based
solely on relativities and xx over a period of time.
2. In March 1991, following the Labour Court
recommendations, the Companies undertook a comprehensive
survey which involved establishing salary levels in a range
of leading companies operating in the grocery market.
(Details supplied to the Court).
3. The survey shows that McDonnells/Levers salary of
#18,956 is within #430 of the top company surveyed, whilst
the company at the lowest end of the survey is #2,362 behind
McDonnells/Levers. On this basis the Companies consider that
no valid claim exists.
4. With regard to the Union's list of comparisons, the
Companies consider that five of the comparator companies
shown are not appropriate comparisons because they do not
operate in similar markets to Levers/McDonnells. Some of the
representatives employed by some of these companies are
required to hold professional qualifications and operate in
specialist areas. (Details supplied to the Court). Three
other companies on the list show salary levels which include
bonus/ment payments and are, therefore, in appropriate for
comparison purposes. One other company on the list shows a
salary level which is payable to a limited number of
specialist representatives and does not reflect the general
payments to representatives.
5. In the course of discussions between the parties the
Company clearly defined its position regarding relativities
and the use of the term upper quartile. The Company believes
that the position as outlined in its letter of 26th November,
1980, (details supplied to the Court), is inappropriate in
today's trading environment.
6. The disagreement between the parties has been on going
for a considerable time. The list presented by the Union
includes pharmaceutical laboratories, distilling and tobacco
companies with which Lever Brothers/McDonnells do not
compete. These Companies concerned operate their businesses
totally independent of each other in different markets that
are highly competitive, their recommendation package paid to
sales representatives is among the best in the industry
sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the written and
oral submissions made to it. The Court was presented with
conflicting evidence as to the compilation of the list of similar
employments used for the purpose of determining the salary of the
claimants over the last decade. The Court accordingly decided to
compile a list of what, in its view are good comparable
employments. Based on this list and accepting that there was a
previous understanding between the parties that the claimant's
salary should be in the upper range the Court considers a maximum
salary of #19,658 p.a. as reasonable in the circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_______________
May, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman