Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92257 Case Number: LCR13705 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ERIN FOODS - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim on behalf of fifteen (15) sales and seven (7) merchandising staff for improved salary scales.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
additional points made at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that
as the Company cannot be considered as new, nor can the employees
be considered as newly organised, the claim is covered by Clause 5
of the P.E.S.P. and the Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim as made.
The Court notes the Companys' proposal to enter into direct
negotiations with the Union on general matters relating to the
claimants which will have salary/bonus implications. The Court
recommends that the Union participate in these discussions.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92257 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13705
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ERIN FOODS
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of fifteen (15) sales and seven (7)
merchandising staff for improved salary scales.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Greencore plc. which was
formally Irish Sugar plc.
3. In early 1991 the Union's research department carried out a
survey of salaries of sales and merchandising staff of twenty
companies in the food industry. The Union found the workers
salaries to be in excess of 20% out-of-line with the comparators.
4. The Union lodged a claim for revised salary scales more in
line with those prevailing in industry generally. The Company
rejected the claim on the grounds that it did not operate terms
and conditions of employment in relation to league/relativity
tables and that the terms and conditions prevailing are
appropriate to the Company's business. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission on 24th July, 1991. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute on 24 April 1992 to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of
the Industrial Relations, Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 17th June, 1992. (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers' salaries are out of line with similar
workers in industry related companies.
2. The Company is in a profit-making situation.
3. When the Company was privatised some senior management
members received considerable salary increases.
4. The claim is not in breach of the programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) as the Company is newly-formed
and the workers were on pay and conditions less than the norm
prevailing in the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has abandoned external and internal
relativities for pay and conditions as unsustainable as they
do not take into account the realities of the business. This
position has been endorsed by the Labour Court in the past
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The workers are on pay and conditions appropriate to the
Company's business.
3. The Company has met all national pay agreements even
during difficult trading times.
4. The claim is in breach of P.E.S.P.
5. The Company is reviewing its sales and marketing area
and proposes to introduce a revised salary structure based on
bonuses/incentives against attainment of defined targets
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
additional points made at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that
as the Company cannot be considered as new, nor can the employees
be considered as newly organised, the claim is covered by Clause 5
of the P.E.S.P. and the Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim as made.
The Court notes the Companys' proposal to enter into direct
negotiations with the Union on general matters relating to the
claimants which will have salary/bonus implications. The Court
recommends that the Union participate in these discussions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th July, 1992 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.