FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COCA COLA BOTTLERS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. 16035.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1996 the Company introduced a restructuring of its sales force. The main thrust of the plan related to a change in the role of Sales Developer. The Company had introduced a grade called Business Developer and had concluded a comprehensive agreement with them. While negotiations were held with the Sales Developers to become Business Developers the Company's proposals were rejected on two occasions by the Sales Developers primarily relating to the increased merchandising role envisaged for them in the Company's plan. The Sales Developers rates were red circled and the Company did not adjust their job descriptions. In November, 1998, the Union's claim on behalf of Sales Developers for improvements in bonuses, increase in clothing allowance and type of company car used, was the subject of a Labour Court investigation. In LCR16035 which was issued on the 7th of December, 1998 the Court recommended as follows:-
"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."
The parties entered into local level discussions but agreement was not reached. Subsequently both parties sought a definitive recommendation from the Court. A further Court hearing was held on the 3rd June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the Union, at local level negotiations, tried to reach a quid pro quo with the Company for concession of its claims it was very clear at these discussions that Management wanted acceptance of its proposals, twice rejected by the workers, in return for concession of the claims. The Company did not put forward fresh proposals for consideration.
2. The workers have given significant co-operation to the Company. They will not, however, accept the Company's proposals on merchandising.
3. The Union seeks concession of its original claims on improvement in bonuses, clothing allowance of £300 and the retention of a saloon type car for the existing category of staff in the Sales Development function.
4. These claims are not precluded by Partnership 2000 because of the change embraced by the workers and the significant productivity given by them to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At local level discussions held under the terms of reference set out in LCR16035 the Sales Developers refused to consider "the impasse" i.e. the acceptance of the need to carry out the merchandising where required by the customer. They maintained this stance and effectively stymied negotiations, despite the Company indicating its willingness to attempt to reduce the extent of the merchandising.
2. Sales Developers receive pay increases under National Agreements and are afforded promotional opportunities.
3. It is crucial that the Sales Developers agree to provide a Business Development Service in the future in order to respond to customer requirements before the Company can consider negotiating on their claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties at this re-hearing. In LCR16035 the Court indicated its concern that this group may not have realised the consequences of their decision to remain outside the proposed category of Business Developers.
The Court is satisfied that the customer requirement is to move toward a Business Developer type role.
It is clear that the claimants to do not accept the extent of merchandising required by the Company and have no wish to move to the Business Developer role.
The Court notes that the Sales Developers are not excluded from receiving any of the normal national pay increases or from promotional opportunities. Having considered all of the issues involved in this case, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th June, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.