FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PAT THE BAKER - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY WORKS COMMITTEE) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Claim regarding money allegedly due to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Pat the Baker is one the country's largest bakeries and has distribution centres in Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Dublin, Letterkenny and Armagh. Its head office and main bakery are located in Granard, Co. Longford.
The Company sells its products in three main ways, namely, bulk supply agreements with major multiples, through agents and through the Company's own van salespersons.
The van salespersons are paid basic pay plus commission based on sales. In all centres some form of threshold is in place on commission payment. In the case of Dublin this is in the form of an 'excess'. This excess operates at a level of sales that has to be reached before any commission is payable.
The dispute before the Court concerns a van salesperson who commenced employment with the Company as a spare driver in 1989 and was offered and accepted a permanent bread round in 1991. At that time he was informed that an excess of £100 would be deducted from his monthly commission.
In March, 1996 the worker requested management to review his commission excess on the basis that he was one of only two drivers in the Dublin area that had excess applied to their rounds. Local level discussions took place at which management agreed to drop the excess with effect form 22nd April, 1996. The worker sought the reimbursement of the excess deducted since 1991. Management rejected the worker's claim.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 9th September, 1996 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th November, 1996. An invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing was declined by the Company.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was the worker's understanding in 1991 that all other drivers had an excess applied to their vans.
2. In March, 1996 the worker was concerned to discover that he was one of only two drivers in the Dublin area with an excess on his van.
3. The worker has been unfairly treated by management in relation to the excess. In the circumstances his claim that management refund the £100 deducted from his monthly commission since 1991 is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The practice of commission excess application is not peculiar to sales runs at the Dublin centre, it is the norm throughout the Company and also within the bakery business in general.
2. Commission excess exists as a regulator mechanism on commission earnings and reflects, amongst other things, the base level of sales generated by the Company through its sales management team. The Company has a policy of reviewing the application of commission excess and does make alterations to reflect changes in particular runs. Such an alteration was warranted in the case of the worker's run but the application of such adjustment retrospectively is not justifiable. The worker was informed by the General Manager of the Dublin centre of the application of the excess when it was applied as was the other van salesperson. Both would have been absolutely clear on this issue at the time.
3. The application of retrospection in this case would have major ramifications throughout the country and could result in claims from other centres. This would impose an unsustainable cost upon the Company.
4. The commission structure in place within the Company throughout the country has developed over a number of years and has proven effective and competitive. The overall results produced by the structure are consistent throughout the country and have a logical basis that reflects the developing bread business. The Company believes that the practice adopted in Dublin is fair and consistent. The Company is willing to make adjustments that are warranted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court recommends that in the circumstances of this case, removal of the 'excess' should be applied from 9 months before the 22nd April, 1996.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd November, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.