FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SALES, MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Walsh |
1. Company cars for sales representatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing, manufacturing and bottling of ciders, perries, fruit juices and soft drinks at its Clonmel plant.
All products in Showerings are distributed nationally from Clonmel and Dublin. The Company is part of the Cantrell and Cochrane Group.
The dispute before the Court concerns a proposal by the Company to change its policy on the provision of cars for sales representatives. In February, 1996 the Company decided to replace the Opel Vectra 1.7 diesel with the Volkswagen Vento on cost grounds. Cantrell and Cochrane operate a car policy for all companies in the group based on cost and suitability.
The Union members objected to the proposed change and claimed that the Opel Vectra should be maintained as the preferred choice. The Union served strike notice on the Company to commence on the 19th April, 1996.
The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 19th April, 1996. The Industrial Relations Officer put forward proposals as an interim measure pending the outcome of the Cantrell and Cochrane Group review of their vehicle fleet car policy arrangement. The interim proposals were accepted by both sides.
The review referred to above was completed early in July 1996. The Union was unhappy with the outcome of the review and requested that the issue be referred to the Labour Court for investigation. The Company agreed.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 29th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The members are treated less favourably by the Company in the provision of cars than other comparable sales representatives.
2. The Opel Vectra is the preferred choice of the sales representatives because it provides the optimum level of safety.
3. The additional cost of the new Opel Vectra is minimal when viewed over the four year retention period.
4. The proposed change in the company's fleet car policy was not negotiated and not agreed to by the members.
5. The morale of the members is very low. They consider that their cars have been demoted to "second class"by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company car policy is based on considerations of cost and suitability. The new Opel Vectra falls outside the policy limits.
2. The Group car policy is not for negotiation in the same way as other conditions of employment are.
3. The Company is not in a position to set aside the Group car policy to satisfy the demands of the sales representatives.
4. The current Opel Vectra is substantially in advance of the previous model and is in effect a "different car".
5. The Company has offered the sales representatives a wide choice of alternative cars to choose from such as the Mitsubishi Lancer 2-0 GLX DSL, Nissan Almera 2-0 GX DSL, Toyota Corolla 2-0 SALXL DSL and the Volkswagen Vento CL 1-9 DSL.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the Group are operating a company car policy which makes available a range of cars within a pricing policy of £15,800.
The Union should accept these arrangements and seek to find a model which is acceptable within the parameters of the policy.
The Court would suggest that there be greater transparency with regard to the bi- annual review and that the employees be advised of changes in the policy.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
10th December, 1996______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.