Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93252 Case Number: LCR14209 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AKZO COATINGS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of pay of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes from the evidence presented at the hearing
that there is a willingness on the part of the Company to improve
the pay position of the claimant but such improvement to be within
company pay norms and on the basis of performance. On the other
hand, the Union seeks to establish a pay rate based on external
relativities.
The Court has considered the history of the case and accepts that,
in an internal company context, the salary of the claimant has
been and continues to be on the low side. Although the Company
claims historical reasons for this situation, the Court does not
find that there are persistent objective reasons why it should
continue. The Court does not however find the external
comparisons advanced by the Union to be relevant to the case.
Although the claimant did not accept the offer made by the Company
in May, 1992 to increase his salary by #1500 in aggregate based on
quarterly performance, the Court notes that he did in fact achieve
the critical performance. In the circumstances, the Court
recommends that the Company offer and the Union accept an increase
in salary of #1500 effective from 1/2/93 in full settlement of the
claimants case. This increase will bring him into line with the
companies other salesmen throughout the country.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93252 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14209
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AKZO COATINGS LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. AKZO Coatings is based in Baldoyle, Dublin 13, and
employs 50 people. The worker was working in the paint centre
on deliveries when he was appointed to the position of Sales
Representative in 1984. His rate of pay was related to his
previous salary and experience.
2. In 1988 following the Union's meeting with the Company
the worker's salary was brought up to that of another
representative. However, the Union was still dissatisfied and
sought a salary scale equivalent to that in the Companies
Crown Berger or HGW. The Company rejected this but proposed
that it would review the worker's salary on a quarterly basis
for three quarters and that, based on the achievement of
specific targets relating to volumes and actual selling price,
a #500 award would be made in each quarter, amounting to a
#1500 increase in total.
3. The Union rejected this proposal and referred the matter
to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on the 31st March, 1993, but agreement could not be
reached. The issue was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on the 6th April, 1993. The
Court investigated the matter on the 19th August, 1993 in
Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's salary is out of line with the pay rates
within the Company and the industry.
2. The Company accepted that the workers salary was low.
3. The Company's offer of #1,500 on a phased basis with
conditions indicates its concern about the low rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Salaries for sales representatives in the Company relate
to previous experience and salary, and performance on the job.
2. Company comparisons in relation to salary are not at all
relevant as each Company in the industry negotiates separately
and there is a wide variation in rates.
3. The Company has made a fair and reasonable offer to the
worker which is consistent with its belief in pay for
performance.
4. The Company has shown good faith towards the worker by
granting him a 6% pay increase in 1993 based on the
improvement in his performance in 1992.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes from the evidence presented at the hearing
that there is a willingness on the part of the Company to improve
the pay position of the claimant but such improvement to be within
company pay norms and on the basis of performance. On the other
hand, the Union seeks to establish a pay rate based on external
relativities.
The Court has considered the history of the case and accepts that,
in an internal company context, the salary of the claimant has
been and continues to be on the low side. Although the Company
claims historical reasons for this situation, the Court does not
find that there are persistent objective reasons why it should
continue. The Court does not however find the external
comparisons advanced by the Union to be relevant to the case.
Although the claimant did not accept the offer made by the Company
in May, 1992 to increase his salary by #1500 in aggregate based on
quarterly performance, the Court notes that he did in fact achieve
the critical performance. In the circumstances, the Court
recommends that the Company offer and the Union accept an increase
in salary of #1500 effective from 1/2/93 in full settlement of the
claimants case. This increase will bring him into line with the
companies other salesmen throughout the country.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
12th October, 1993 ----------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.