Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94277 Case Number: LCR14466 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH LIFE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of the Company's 'Building Business Advantage' (B.B.A.) strategy.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
terms proposed by the Company for new Personal Financial Advisors
should be accepted by the Union and that the impact of the new
terms should be reviewed after a period of three years to ensure
that they are reasonable, having regard to the overall objectives
of the 'Building Business Advantage' and the position of the
advisors.
The Court also recommends that the forum to consider ways of
encouraging one-person selling, which emerged during the
discussions at the Labour Relations Commission, should be set up.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94277 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14466
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH LIFE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of the Company's
'Building Business Advantage' (B.B.A.) strategy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two main issues arising from the
implementation of the B.B.A. strategy:-
(i) Commission for 70 Personal Financial Advisers (PFAs)
from self-produced business;
(ii) The wage structure for new entrants.
The Company reached agreement on these issues with a different
union (M.S.F., which represents the majority of PFAs) and was
unwilling to amend that agreement in order to gain acceptance from
S.I.P.T.U., which is seeking negotiation on the above, and also
the provision, free of charge, of lap-top computers.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 9th of May, 1994, at which
agreement was not reached. The Company, however, indicated its
preparedness to consider a forum to explore the issue of
'commission structure'. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court, on the 12th of May, 1994, in accordance with Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 27th of May, 1994. A Recommendation was issued to
the parties, by letter, on the 7th of June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. There is no justifiable reason for 'new intake' to bear
a burden for the rest of their careers with the Company. Rates
for new staff at 'take-on' appear initially to be favourable.
However, the long-term effect will be to create a two-tier
system. A new formula would be considered if it were phased
out after a number of years. Precedent set in other companies
does not need to be followed.
2. With the changes in the role of sales managers (details
supplied), management expects sales-staff to operate with
reduced sales support, thereby achieving one-person selling
without compensation to the sales representatives. The major
part of commission should be paid to the seller, which is not
the case at present.
3. In the Company's Field Development Plan (details
supplied to the Court) there was a clear commitment to provide
necessary technology free of charge. New product calculations
are so complex that a lap-top is necessary. Under the
proposals for 'new intake', lap-top costs are written-in and
the new staff must take a computer. This enforces the
argument that the technology should be provided free of
charge.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. All changes introduced for PFAs are designed to improve
the position of the PFA group and have been implemented of
necessity.
2. Concessions costing in excess of #100,000 this year,
have been made to the PFA group in order to secure agreement.
This contrasts with the cost-cutting measures introduced for
all other grades throughout the Company.
3. Newly-recruited PFAs have accepted appointment on the
basis of the new terms. It would be a breach of faith not to
apply these terms.
4. All other PFA staff (85%) have accepted the B.B.A.
changes.
5. The Company cannot afford any further increase in costs.
It is necessary to retain the charges for lap-top computers
(reduced to #10 per week for three years).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
terms proposed by the Company for new Personal Financial Advisors
should be accepted by the Union and that the impact of the new
terms should be reviewed after a period of three years to ensure
that they are reasonable, having regard to the overall objectives
of the 'Building Business Advantage' and the position of the
advisors.
The Court also recommends that the forum to consider ways of
encouraging one-person selling, which emerged during the
discussions at the Labour Relations Commission, should be set up.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
20th July 1994 ---------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR MICHAEL KEEGAN, COURT SECRETARY.