FULL RECOMMENDATION
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 DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Re-hearing arising from Court Recommendation No. LCR 14757.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bass PLC, a UK-based company. It currently employs 62 workers at various locations in Ireland. The dispute, which was the subject of a previous Labour Court hearing, concerned 26 workers employed as Sales Representatives and Sales Developers (who deal with multiple supermarkets) to service the Company's market in the Republic of Ireland. In August, 1994, the Union submitted a claim, on behalf of both group of workers, for a salary scale of £16,000, increasing by 15 increments, to £24,000. At that time, the salary scales of the two groups were as follows:-
Sales Representatives £16,000 - £20,000
Sales Developers £13,500 - £16,970.
Pay is reviewed annually on a merit basis and the Company decides the amount of any increases. The Union's claim was rejected by the Company and following the Labour Court investigation, a Recommendation was issued which stated, inter alia, as follows:-
"Given the conflicting views presented to the Court on the value and job content of the Sales Developers the Court recommends that the 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 issue of salary movement, if the Company's trading position improves. A review of this position to take place in January 1996".
A Committee was formed which considered and compared the relative merits of the positions of Sales Developer and Sales Representative. Arising from its findings, the Company indicated that it saw no justification for increasing the salary rates of the Sales Developers. The parties failed to reach agreement subsequently and the matter was referred back to the Court for investigation and recommendation. The re-hearing took place on the 25th of November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Even though the Company's trading position has improved, it has refused to negotiate on the issues of salary scales and anomalies.
2. Regarding the issue of Sales Developers, the workers concerned should be treated as Sales Representatives. Their main function is to sell the Company's products, which they do very well, calling mainly on the supermarkets. Their other duties such as merchandising are less important and should not be used as a barrier by the Company. It should be noted that one of the Sales Developers actually won the award for "Salesman of the Year" for 1995.
3. Other companies where the Union has members consider that working with the multiple stores constitutes a normal feature of a salesman job.
4. The work allocated to Developers previously formed part of the Company's normal sales calls and, accordingly, the Company should not differentiate between them and their colleagues.
5. It is unreasonable that there is no pay-structure for the Tennents staff in question. A salary-scale operates well in 95% of companies that employ sales representatives.
6. Under the present system, there is no real possibility of a new recruit aspiring to parity with better paid colleagues. Additionally, there are no established criteria by which anomalies can be addressed.
7. As many as 9 sales workers have left the Company recently. This clearly points to dissatisfaction.
8. The Court recommended that salary movement should be discussed by the parties, the only pre-condition being that the Company's financial position would have improved. Such improvement has occurred, helped by the efforts of the salesforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the Recommendation of the Labour Court, a committee was established to examine the work content of Sales Representatives - v - Sales Developers. The committee comprised four members, two sales managers nominated by the Company and two representatives nominated by the Union. The committee met on two occasions and as a result 'scored' the two jobs against agreed criteria (details supplied). As a result the Company advised the Union that it could not support a case for reviewing the Sales Developers' salaries (details supplied).
2. The Company is part of Bass PLC, which operates on the basis of "reward for performance". It does not, in principle, support a policy of automatic incremental increases. Employees progress through scales by merit awards.
3. The rate of inflation is currently approximately 2.5%. The incremental increases, as suggested, would be more than double the Consumer Price Index and would constitute an unacceptable cost burden on the Company's finances.
4. The Company accepts that the criteria involved in assessing merit have not been transparent and has offered to address this situation.
5. The Company has implemented all phases of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Additionally, in January, 1996, the Company awarded an extra 1% (average) merit payment.
6. The Company is not in a position to make awards beyond those already paid. It continues to be in a loss-making situation and while the loss will be reduced it will be some time before a profit will be recorded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the issue of work relativities between the posts of Sales Representative and Sales Developer was the subject of an agreed working party report that did not support the Sales Developers' case.
On the merit-based system, the Court recommends that the Union enters into discussions with the Company to explore further the possible benefits that could form the basis of a resolution of this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th December, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.