FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : F.A. WYATT & COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Basic Pay.
2. Holidays.
3. Allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 28 workers. It mainly distributes private label household products and nappies. The Company always dealt with Benckiser Products. In January, 2000 following the merger of Benckiser with Reckitt-Coleman, the Company competed for and won the agency to distribute Reckitt-Benckiser products.
The dispute concerns three workers who are employed by the Company as sales representatives. The Union's claims were submitted in February, 2000, details are as follows:
1. Salary
The Union claims that the salary scale of the workers concerned is out of line with industry norms. It is seeking a salary scale with a maximum of £27,500 per annum.
2. Holidays
The Union's claim is for an increase in the annual leave entitlements to 25 days.
3. Allowances
The Union claims that a number of allowances were removed from workers and that telephone rental was halved without any compensation being paid by the Company. The Company rejected the claims.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 4th May, 2000 at which no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th of May, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 27th of July, 2000.
CLAIM 1
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The salary level which the Company pays to its sales representatives is very low and needs to be improved substantially.
2. No negotiations have taken place on salaries since 1991 and while workers in other salesforces have progressed financially those in Wyatts have not. There is a serious anomaly in the level of salary and it must be corrected.
3. Recent developments in the Company, particularly, the acquisition of the Reckitt's brands have led to greater productivity by the salesforce and workers are entitled under Clause 7 of Partnership 2000 to negotiate. Two other salesforces in R. Roberts and Swedish Match have had salary adjustments on this basis after taking on other Reckitt's brands.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). The Union's claim is predicated on an unreasonable expectation arising from the Reckitt-Benckiser contract.
2. While the Company gained the Reckitt-Benckiser contract it did so on tight margins, and it is imperative that the Company achieve these when the contract is being renewed every twelve months.
3. The three claimants are all at the top of their scale, thereby further undermining the validity of the claim.
4. The Reckitt-Benckiser contract will provide the opportunity of an additional bonus that would not prejudice their current bonus, it has potential earnings of £5,500 per worker.
CLAIM 2
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
5. 1. The Company's offer to grant two extra holidays on the basis that ten extra hours would be worked on Christmas week is unacceptable. The Company should bring itself into line with the norm for Sales Representatives. The inclusion of Good Friday and Christmas Eve in the 20 days should be ended.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
6. 1. The claim is cost increasing and precluded by the PPF.
2. The Company took cognisance of the annual leave practice in other companies and, as a means of making a meaningful offer (despite the cost increasing element) offered two additional days. In return the Company sought the workers' co-operation by way of 10 extra hours at Christmas. This request would merely align the claimants' work practices with those of their colleagues who are not part of the claim.
CLAIM 3
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
7. 1. The Union wants the net value of allowances restored. In 1991 the allowances were as follows:
Lunch Allowance £5.50 daily
Car Wash £1.74 weekly
Garage Allowance £5.00 weekly
Suit Allowance £100 annually
These were to be subject to annual revision based on Consumer Price Index (CPI). In 1995, the Company removed the Garage Allowance and Suit Allowance and the Telephone Rental. Lunch Allowance was increased to Public Service level where it remains.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
8. 1. Both the Suit Allowance and Garage Allowance were bought out through an increase in the Lunch Allowance in 1995. These expenses had to be eliminated at the behest of the Revenue Commissioners.
2. The claim for an increase in expenses is spurious given that expenses as permitted by the Revenue reached Civil Service rates from the 3rd of April, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given consideration to all aspects of these claims the Court recommends the following :-
Increase in Rate of Pay
The Company has recently acquired a new agency, which will be subject to review in February 2001. The Court has been made aware of how instrumental the acquisition of this agency was in terms of securing the survival of the company in its current operation.
Under the terms of PPF the Court does not recommend an increase in pay. However, prior to the Court hearing the company indicated to the Union that as part of the new contract a new bonus, in addition to the existing one, would be provided. It was stated that potential earnings of £5,500 per person were achievable under this new bonus.
With this forecast in mind the Court recommends that in settlement of this claim, the performance of the new bonus should be reviewed when the agency is being renewed in February 2001.
Annual Leave
Taking into account the extra hours, which are worked during the Christmas season, the Court recommends an increase in annual leave to 23 days.
Allowances
The Court notes that the company have indicated that they will issue a new car policy.
Where a home telephone is used for business purposes the company should ensure that the appropriate expenses are reimbursed.
In relation to claims for the restoration of the Garage and Suit Allowances, the Court is aware of the agreement made in 1995 when these allowances were cconsolidated into the lunch allowance. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of these claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th August, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.