Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92285 Case Number: LCR13695 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
A dispute regarding compensation for a reduction in staffing levels involving 16 sales representatives.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the meeting of October, 1989 in effect
gave notice of termination of previous agreements and practice
with regard to manning levels generally. For this reason the
Court does not recommend that the staffing levels of the
salesforce be maintained or that any case exists for the payment
of compensation in the event of its reduction.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92285 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding compensation for a reduction in staffing
levels involving 16 sales representatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures and markets confectionery
products. It took over the former Rowntree Mackintosh in late
1988. In February, 1989, the Company concluded an agreement
with the administrative and shop floor workers for a reduction
in the number of workers, a reduction in overtime and the
introduction of new work standards. Compensation was paid to
those affected.
2. In the sales area, the general staffing complement is 14
representatives on general products and 3 representatives
covering catering products. In early 1989, the Company
promoted a member of the salesforce to the position of
catering manager. The Union made a claim on the Company for
the replacement of the representative who was promoted on the
basis of a 1984 manning agreement.
3. The dispute could not be resolved locally and it was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 11th October, 6th December, 1991 and
23rd March, 1992. The Company argued that there was no change
in the numbers employed as the worker promoted to catering
manager was retained within the area and still operated to a
significant degree as a representative. The Company had also
recruited a temporary representative. The Union disagreed and
sought compensation for the breach of the 1984 agreement. No
resolution was possible and the claim was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 20th May,
1992. A Labour Court investigation took place on 4th June,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1984, as part of a major rationalisation Programme, an
agreement was reached with the Company for a manning level of
18 sales staff. This was amended to 17 sales staff in 1987
and compensation was paid to the workers. This agreement has
been confirmed by the Company on numerous occasions, most
recently in June, 1990 (details supplied).
2. The Company must be made to honour its agreements with the
salesforce. The Company's present position is a breach of the
established method of dealing with the problem. A recent
report by the Company on the salesforce confirmed that manning
levels would not change. The Union's first position is for a
person to be appointed to the job and only as a last resort is
it prepared to consider compensation. This position is
consistent with precedent.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, in October, 1989, met the Unions to explain
necessary changes at the Company. It was explained that any
previous agreement or understandings which guaranteed manning
levels could not be sustained (details supplied). Over the
ensuing 18 months agreed redundancies took place, overtime was
reduced and new work standards were installed.
2. During the same period, there were no reductions in the
salesforce. There were significant additions (details
supplied) and increases in the marketing spend. It is not
expected that there will be any reduction in the size of the
salesforce in the foreseeable future. Any future increase in
size will be determined by business needs and a reduction will
only take place through the application of good industrial
relations practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the meeting of October, 1989 in effect
gave notice of termination of previous agreements and practice
with regard to manning levels generally. For this reason the
Court does not recommend that the staffing levels of the
salesforce be maintained or that any case exists for the payment
of compensation in the event of its reduction.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
25th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.