Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9299 Case Number: LCR13616 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FLOGAS IRELAND LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for pay parity between 10 sales representatives employed by the Company and sales representatives employed by a named company.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties does not, given the present circumstances, find the
claim well grounded and accordingly rejects it. The Court has
noted the intention of the Company to review the non-replacement
of staff in the near future.
The Court considers that in the event the Company decide on the
non-replacement of staff the consequences of this action
together with the effect on the remaining staff should be the
subject of discussion with the workers and their
representatives.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9299 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13616
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FLOGAS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for pay parity between 10 sales
representatives employed by the Company and sales
representatives employed by a named company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company distributes liquefied petroleum gas (L.P.G.) in
cylinder and bulk form. It employs 10 sales representatives who
operate all the Company's business in their respective areas.
There is a 14 point salary scale with a top salary of £19,919
(at October, 1991) attached to the sales representative post.
The Company also operates an annual incentive scheme and an
annual profit sharing scheme. In late 1990 the Union sought
improvements in the sales representative conditions of
employment including a claim for pay parity with sales
representatives employed by a named competitor. The named
competitor operates a 13 point salary scale with a top of scale
of £26,989 (at October, 1991). The Company rejected the pay
parity claim which it considered as contrary to the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference took place on 24th April, 1991 at which no agreement
was reached. The Union reserved its position pending
termination of the P.N.R. in the Company on 30th September,
1991.
On 4th September, 1991 the Union again raised the pay parity
claim. The claim was rejected by the Company. No agreement was
reached at local level discussions and the matter was referred
on 16th October, 1991 to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 13th December, 1991 at which
no progress could be made to resolve the dispute. The matter
was referred to the Labour Court on 12th February, 1992 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 6th March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has a long standing claim which should be
addressed in a fair and responsible manner by the Company.
The continued refusal of the Company to recognise the
validity of the claim can only lead to conflict and a
decline in industrial relations.
2. Through the efforts of the workers the Company has
achieved roughly 40% of the market share and is in a profit
making position. The Company has benefited from increased
productivity as a result of the non-replacement of a sales
representative who resigned in 1990. The Company is in a
position to deal with the Union's claim in a reasonable
manner.
3. When a comparison is made between the salary scales of
the workers concerned and their comparators it is clear
that there are major differences. With the implementation
of percentage wage increases under national agreements the
gap between the two salary scales is widening. The workers
concerned should be paid on an equal basis to their
comparators and the Union is prepared to negotiate on ways
of closing the wage gap.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned enjoy a very beneficial and
competitive salary and remuneration package. They benefit
from a sales incentive scheme and an annual profit sharing
scheme. In the past the Company has implemented the terms
of the P.N.R. and is fully committed to the terms of the
P.E.S.P. The Company is not prepared to consider salary
cost increasing claims which are contrary to the terms of
the P.E.S.P.
2. The Company is operating against a background of
increased competition for a declining market. The downturn
in product demand has a negative effect on profits and the
future prospects for growth are poor. It is in the
interests of the Company and the workers that costs are
controlled so as to remain competitive. Even if the claim
was not contrary to the P.E.S.P. it could not be conceded
under the present market and economic conditions.
3. The named Company which is being used by the Union as
a comparator occupies a well established dominant position
in the market place and is part of a larger multi-national
group. It is not a fair comparator as both companies
differ in size, structures, and methods of operation. The
Company has developed its own salary structure in order to
remain competitive. The Company cannot be expected to take
on the cost structures of a much larger competitor.
4. Any adjustment in the rate of pay of sales
representatives could have repercussive effects for other
workers in the Company. The Company is presently cutting
back on temporary and casual labour levels in an effort to
achieve a more competitive cost structure. The Company
will be re-appraising employment levels in the near
future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties does not, given the present circumstances, find the
claim well grounded and accordingly rejects it. The Court has
noted the intention of the Company to review the non-replacement
of staff in the near future.
The Court considers that in the event the Company decide on the
non-replacement of staff the consequences of this action
together with the effect on the remaining staff should be the
subject of discussion with the workers and their
representatives.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
8th April, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.