Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95144 Case Number: LCR14748 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the tele-ads bonus/incentive scheme for 25 tele sales staff.
Recommendation:
Based on the facts as outlined to it, it appears to the Court that
the acceptance of the revenue-based scheme by the employees
concerned would be more beneficial to them in the long term.
It is apparent, however, that there are some anomalies emerging in
the operating of the scheme as presently structured. It is also
apparent that those employees who find themselves disadvantaged as
a result of these anomalies are to an extent limited in the
measures they can take to improve their positions. The
difficulties which have arisen in the working of the scheme do not
appear to be insurmountable. Agreement however on ways to
overcome them may well be more forthcoming between the parties if
at least a definite decision has been reached as to which scheme
is going to be operated into the future. In this regard, as
stated earlier in this recommendation, the Court has expressed an
opinion in favour of the revenue-based scheme.
Accordingly, the Court recommends:-
(a) that there be an acceptance of the revenue-based scheme by
the employees concerned,
(b) that the parties meet as soon as possible with the objective
of analysing and rectifying where possible the specific
issues of contention as outlined to the Court,
(c) that, on acceptance of (a) above by the employees concerned,
the Company agrees to pay any amounts due as a result of the
fall-back guarantee being extended to the period March,
1994/March, 1995.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95144 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14748
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the tele-ads bonus/incentive scheme for 25
tele sales staff.
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 1992/1993 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.
2. The claim was rejected by the Company and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court. The Court's
Recommendation (LCR14163) was issued on 30th July, 1993
and it recommended inter-alia as follows:-
"1. That the earnings of the staff in the year to
March, 1994 be at least equivalent to the 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."
3. Following the issue of this recommendation further
meetings and an exchange of correspondence took place
between the parties. In a letter dated 25th January,
1994, the Company wrote to the Union indicating
that it was the Company's intention to remain on a
revenue-based scheme. The Company also indicated that
it was prepared to extend the guarantee of 1992/1993
level of earnings which had applied during 1993/1994 for
a further four three months periods from March, 1994 to
March, 1995 subject to a review at the end of each
period to ascertain the reasons for any difficulties
which were being experienced. The letter also addressed
various other concerns and queries raised by the Union.
Following a further local meeting the Company's position
was confirmed in a letter of 4th March, 1994. (Details
supplied).
4. On 3rd June, 1994, the Union informed the Company that
the revenue-based scheme was being rejected. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 25th
August and 24th December, 1994.
5. At conciliation, the Union argued that the scheme was
unacceptable and led to losses. The Company argued that
if account was taken of the reduction in business, the
overall figure was very close to 1992/1993 figure
(details supplied).
6. Some progress was made at conciliation. The Company
insisted that the Union must accept the revenue-based
scheme in full before it would make payments under the
guarantee provision up to March, 1994 or extend the
guarantee provision to March, 1995.
7. As no further progress was possible, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 22nd February, 1995 in
accordance with the terms of Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 13th April, 1995, (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the terms of existing agreements both parties are
obliged to negotiate change. The Company has
unilaterally imposed a new bonus scheme which has
adversely affected the earnings of the workers.
2. In the last 5 years, the workers have only received one
wage increase. The workers are paid at rates which are
20% less than the industry norms. The revenue-based
scheme is demotivating for the workers because of the
inequities inherent in the distribution of earnings
which cannot be influenced by the workers (details
supplied).
3. The Union seeks an agreed alternative with the guarantee
provision being maintained in the interim. The
revenue-based scheme should also be adjusted to ensure
that earnings are no less than they would be under a
volume-based scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company changed to a revenue-based bonus scheme
because the volume-based scheme was perceived as being
unfair to some sections. The revenue-based system is
fairer as it introduced individual targets based on
volumes achieved in 1992. The Company also provided a
guarantee provision for earnings.
2. The Company has made every effort to conclude an
agreement with the Union as provided for in LCR14163.
The Company's serious intent can be seen from the
concessions which it has made (details supplied).
3. There has been a substantial drop in revenue year on
year since 1992. Despite this, in January, 1994, the
Company has agreed to extend the guarantee for the year
1994/1995. As a result of the Union's refusal to accept
the revenue scheme, the Company has not paid monies due
under the guarantee. In the circumstances, the
Company's position is reasonable and fair.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the facts as outlined to it, it appears to the Court that
the acceptance of the revenue-based scheme by the employees
concerned would be more beneficial to them in the long term.
It is apparent, however, that there are some anomalies emerging in
the operating of the scheme as presently structured. It is also
apparent that those employees who find themselves disadvantaged as
a result of these anomalies are to an extent limited in the
measures they can take to improve their positions. The
difficulties which have arisen in the working of the scheme do not
appear to be insurmountable. Agreement however on ways to
overcome them may well be more forthcoming between the parties if
at least a definite decision has been reached as to which scheme
is going to be operated into the future. In this regard, as
stated earlier in this recommendation, the Court has expressed an
opinion in favour of the revenue-based scheme.
Accordingly, the Court recommends:-
(a) that there be an acceptance of the revenue-based scheme by
the employees concerned,
(b) that the parties meet as soon as possible with the objective
of analysing and rectifying where possible the specific
issues of contention as outlined to the Court,
(c) that, on acceptance of (a) above by the employees concerned,
the Company agrees to pay any amounts due as a result of the
fall-back guarantee being extended to the period March,
1994/March, 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.