Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95175 Case Number: LCR14757 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TENNENTS IRELAND LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning: 1. Salary scale for Sales Representatives and Sales Developers. 2. Promotional Evenings.
Recommendation:
1996
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95175 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14757
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TENNENTS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:
1. Salary scale for Sales Representatives and Sales
Developers.
2. Promotional Evenings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Salary Scale.
The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bass PLC, a
U.K. based Company. It employs 70 workers at various
locations in Ireland. The dispute concerns 26 workers
who are employed as sales representatives and sales
developers (dealing with multiple supermarkets) to
service the market in the Republic of Ireland. The
salary scales of the workers concerned are as follows:-
Sales Representatives #16,000 - #20,000 P.A.
Sales Developers #13,500 - #16,970 P.A.
Pay is reviewed annually on a merit basis and the
Company decides the amount of the increase. In August
1994, the Union submitted a claim, on behalf of both
groups of workers, for a salary scale of #16,000
increasing by fifteen increments to #24,000.
2. Promotional Evenings.
The Company's marketing policy requires that its
products be promoted in licensed premises after working
hours. The Company expects representatives to attend
these promotions. The Union claims that attendances are
purely voluntary.
3. The claims were discussed at local level without
agreement being reached and were referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on the 24th January, 1995 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court
by the Labour Relations Commission on the 3rd March,
1995. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 23rd
March, 1995. A letter Recommendation was issued on the
8th May, 1995. On the 24th May, 1995, an amended
Recommendation was issued.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Salaries - Sales Representatives:
1. The Company has gone some way towards recognising
the Union's position by adjusting the salary
starting point to #16,000. However, the present
maximum must be extended to #24,000 and the Union
is prepared to extend the incremental range by 15
points as opposed to the usual 12-13 points.
2. Many comparable companies pay rates which have a
maximum of #24,000 - #25,000.
3. The workers concerned have given substantial
co-operation to the Company by not seeking
replacements for two sales representatives who left
the employment.
3. 2. 1. Sales Developers.
The Company cannot treat sales developers
differently to sales representatives because they
do similar work. The sales developers' basic
responsibility is sales volume, they undertake
evening promotional work and all the other duties
of sales representatives. They have larger areas
and more time is required on their major calls.
Sales representatives previously called on the
outlets now covered by the sales developers.
2. The parent company (Bass) do not make any
distinction in Northern Ireland or the U.K. between
on-trade and off-trade representatives.
3. 3. 1. Promotional Evenings.
Attendance at promotional evenings has always been
voluntary. Generally there has not been a problem
for the workers attending these promotions. The
Union however, must insist that the attendances are
voluntary.
2. Other comparable companies have not required
workers' attendance at promotions as a condition of
employment. This Company should adopt a similar
stance and not seek to "require representatives" to
work these hours as a condition of employment. The
Union has co-operated in this area and the
voluntary system has operated satisfactorily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. 1. Sales Representatives.
The Company has sustained significant losses in
recent years and its financial position is serious
(details supplied to the Court). Given this
situation the salary scales paid by the Company are
very good. The basic starting point was increased
to #16,000 in 1994.
2. The Company cannot accept the scale proposed by the
Union. It is opposed to incremental scales. The
rate of inflation is currently 2.5%, the P.C.W. for
year two is also 2.5%. The increases suggested by
the Union would, in effect, be more than double the
Consumer Price Index and place an unacceptable cost
burden on the Company's finances.
3. The favoured merit increases are a traditional pay
method within the parent organisation and recognise
personal achievement. Merit increases are
dependent on profitability which is the overriding
factor for awarding increases. The Company is
prepared to discuss the transparency of the merit
system with the Union.
4. 2. 1. Sales Developers.
These workers have a different salary scale to
sales representatives because their role is
significantly different in relation to promotional
work, merchandising (a major element of their
work), call rate, cash collection, discounts,
negotiating product range, profit margins on take
home products.
2. The Company has paid the terms of the P.E.S.P. and
is committed to the P.C.W. Its overall conditions
of employment package is extremely competitive and
compares very well with other industrial sector
companies.
4. 3. 1. Promotional Evenings.
Promotional evenings, worked outside normal working
hours, attract an additional payment for each
occasion a sales representative is required to
work. They assist in developing sales and
increasing volumes. Promotional evenings are used
by all major drink companies.
2. All sales personnel are informed at interview that
there is a requirement to work such evenings.
Individual contracts of employment state that
working hours are "as required to meet the needs of
the business".
3. The Company has confirmed to the Union in writing
that "if a sales person has good reason for not
attending a promotional evening it would not be
envisaged that the Company should take any action
against that individual".
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties. The Court notes the changes that have taken place in
relation to (A) the increase in the level of commencement salary
for Sales Representatives (B) the Company commitment to pay the
P.C.W. as a minimum to individuals.
It is also clear that the Company accepted the principle of
payment for Promotional Evenings.
Given the conflicting views presented to the Court on the value
and job content of the Sales Developers the Court recommends that
this issue be reviewed at the end of 1995 when the experience of
the year can be analysed and the merits of the case measured more
accurately by the parties.
The Court also recommends that the parties meet to discuss the
isse of salary movement, if the Company's trading position
improves. A review of this position to take place in January,
1996.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.