FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COCA COLA BOTTLERS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning improvements in bonuses, increase in clothing allowance and type of company car used.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 26 Sales Developers. In 1996, the Company introduced a re-structuring plan for its salesforce. The main thrust of the plan related to a change in the role of Sales Developer. In recent times the Company, as part of its strategic plans, introduced a grade called Business Developer. While negotiations took place on terms and conditions for both grades and the Company concluded a comprehensive agreement with the Business Developers, no agreement was reached with the Sales Developers. At local level negotiations two sets of proposals, recommended for acceptance by the Union, were rejected by the Sales Developers. The Company did not pursue its proposed changes and instead red-circled the Sales Developers' rates and did not adjust their job descriptions. The Union seeks increases in the bonus payment and clothing allowance, and wishes to continue with the company car in its present form (saloon as opposed to estate car). Management rejected the claims. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 23rd September, 1998. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 6th October, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 25th November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union is seeking negotiations with the Company on an increase in the bonus scales. The workers concerned co-operate with 90% of the job description and duties previously proposed. Management has accepted, however, that the workers remain as Sales Developers and must be allowed to have negotiations within their current role.
2. The clothing allowance of £150 should be increased to £300 in respect of Sales Developers in Cork, Tuam, Killarney and Limerick. The Dublin Sales Developers, who do not receive any allowance, should now receive a clothing allowance set at £300. The allowance is available to Business Developers since January, 1998.
3. The make of car made available has generally been at the discretion of Management, however, it has never been changed from saloon to hatchback. Management has insisted on this change to facilitate extensive merchandising (now required of Business Developers), Sales Developers have not agreed to this role and therefore, should not be denied a saloon model.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Because the workers concerned rejected the 1996 re-structuring proposals the Company decided to red-circle them and has tried to accommodate them as best it can within the present structure.
2. The Union is now seeking to enhance certain elements i.e. bonus payment, clothing allowance and company car, however, the Company contends that the Union is attempting to 'cherry pick' from the 1996 proposal in initiating a fresh claim which has not been discussed locally.
3. If the Sales Developers accept the change required in their role as per the 1996 proposals the Company is willing to consider the claim in that context. If not then the claim must be considered as a new claim, and must, in the first instance be proposed locally, at which the Company has the right to defend the claim by all appropriate means including its preclusion under Partnership 2000 as a cost increasing claim and to table counter proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties. The Court is concerned that a significant group such as the claimants appear to be now in danger of being excluded from the normal benefits of agreement to change.
While the Court accepts that the claimants are opposed to the proposed Company changes, the Court recommends that they enter into discussion with the Company on their own claims to try to agree a quid pro quo for concession.
These discussions should include discussion on the current impasse on the proposed job changes, with both sides endeavouring to accommodate the other side's requirements. In the event that the parties fail to reach agreement, the Court will make a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th December, 1998______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.