Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93392 Case Number: LCR14163 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRESS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the loss of incentive bonus earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court notes the original incentive scheme formed part of a
negotiated agreement between the Union and the Company.
The Court considers, therefore, that the new incentive scheme
should have been negotiated and agreed through the normal
industrial relations procedures prior to its implementation.
Notwithstanding the above the Court notes the scheme has been
implemented and is in operation since March, 1993.
From the submissions, both oral and written, it is clear to the
Court that there is considerable dissatisfaction among the staff
with the manner in which the scheme is operating. With a view to
resolving difficulties and making such adjustments to the scheme
as may be necessary to ensure the scheme is achieving the
objective of the parties the Court recommends :-
1. That the earnings of the staff in the year to March,
1994 be at least equivalent to tha earnings the staff
achieved in the previous year,
2. That any shortfall in earnings from the date of
introduction of the new incentive scheme to the 31st of July,
1993 be paid at 100% with immediate effect,
3. That the parties immediately commence discussions with a
view to the introduction of an accepted scheme. These
discussions to be completed on or before 1st November, 1993,
4. That pending the introduction of a new or amended
incentive scheme the workers operate the present scheme under
protest and the Company pay, on a quarterly basis, the
shortfall in earnings as a consequence of the alteration of
the scheme.
5. In March, 1994 the parties review all aspects of the
operation of the incentive scheme.
The Court so recommends.
CLARIFICATION:
REF: CD93392
December, 1993.
Mr. John Kane,
Branch Secretary,
S.I.P.T.U.,
Liberty Hall,
Dublin 1.
RE: IRISH PRESS (LCR NO. 14163)
Dear Mr. Kane,
The Court having considered the letter of 16th November, 1993 is
of the view that in respect of the staff referred to it would not
be unreasonable to calculate their earnings on a notional basis
i.e. Earnings
-------- X 12 months
8 months
The Court considers this should provide an equitable basis for all
staff.
Yours sincerely,
_______________
Tom McGrath,
Deputy Chairman.
c.c. Irish Press PLC.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93392 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14163
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PRESS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the loss of incentive bonus earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operated a volume-based commission/incentive
scheme from 1979 up to March, 1993. This scheme was
negotiated as part of the 1980 Productivity Agreement and
provides for commissions to Tele Sales staff who achieved the
minimum criteria set down.
On the 1st March, 1993, the Company introduced a new
revenue-based commission/incentive scheme and guaranteed to
pay in March, 1994, the 1992/93 level of commission if staff
did not earn the equivalent or greater under the new scheme.
The Union sought reversion to the status quo pending
agreement on a new system or the payment of 100% of
guaranteed earnings on a current basis while operating the
new scheme for a trial period on agreed criteria. The
Company rejected this but were prepared to pay staff 50% of
1992/1993 monthly commission on a current basis. Agreement
could not be reached and the matter was referred by the union
to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences
took place on the 15th June, 1993 and 2nd July, 1993 but
again agreement could not be reached. The dispute was
referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour
Court on the 5th July, 1993. The Court investigated the
matter on the 19th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was no discussion or agreement with the union
prior to the implementation of the new scheme and, therefore,
no formal basis for its operation by staff.
2. The workers are the only group in the company whose
earnings have been reduced.
3. The new scheme is a disincentive scheme with only a
couple of workers achieving bonus in any one month.
4. The norm in the newspaper trade is for volume-based and
not revenue-based incentive schemes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The old volume-based scheme was recognised by both staff
and management as a disincentive to selling.
2. The new revenue-based scheme was introduced to recognise
effort and reward accordingly.
3. Incentive schemes are there to reward additional effort
as sales staff are paid a salary in order to achieve a
minimum standard of performance.
4. It is critical that all three titles are treated
individually, thus ensuring that no one title can be sold to
the detriment of the others.
5. Cost of sales in the classified sales department is
running at 25.64% for the year to date while the industry
average is in the region of 9% - 11%.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the original incentive scheme formed part of a
negotiated agreement between the Union and the Company.
The Court considers, therefore, that the new incentive scheme
should have been negotiated and agreed through the normal
industrial relations procedures prior to its implementation.
Notwithstanding the above the Court notes the scheme has been
implemented and is in operation since March, 1993.
From the submissions, both oral and written, it is clear to the
Court that there is considerable dissatisfaction among the staff
with the manner in which the scheme is operating. With a view to
resolving difficulties and making such adjustments to the scheme
as may be necessary to ensure the scheme is achieving the
objective of the parties the Court recommends :-
1. That the earnings of the staff in the year to March,
1994 be at least equivalent to tha earnings the staff
achieved in the previous year,
2. That any shortfall in earnings from the date of
introduction of the new incentive scheme to the 31st of July,
1993 be paid at 100% with immediate effect,
3. That the parties immediately commence discussions with a
view to the introduction of an accepted scheme. These
discussions to be completed on or before 1st November, 1993,
4. That pending the introduction of a new or amended
incentive scheme the workers operate the present scheme under
protest and the Company pay, on a quarterly basis, the
shortfall in earnings as a consequence of the alteration of
the scheme.
5. In March, 1994 the parties review all aspects of the
operation of the incentive scheme.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
TOM MC GRATH
--------------
30th July, 1993 Deputy Chairman
P.O.C./M.H.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.
CLARIFICATION:
REF: CD93392
December, 1993.
Mr. John Kane,
Branch Secretary,
S.I.P.T.U.,
Liberty Hall,
Dublin 1.
RE: IRISH PRESS (LCR NO. 14163)
Dear Mr. Kane,
The Court having considered the letter of 16th November, 1993 is
of the view that in respect of the staff referred to it would not
be unreasonable to calculate their earnings on a notional basis
i.e. Earnings
-------- X 12 months
8 months
The Court considers this should provide an equitable basis for all
staff.
Yours sincerely,
_______________
Tom McGrath,
Deputy Chairman.
c.c. Irish Press PLC.