FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAMISH & CRAWFORD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Basic rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of 21 Sales representatives whose pay, the Union believes, has fallen considerably below sales representatives in other comparator companies in the drinks industry. The Company rejected the claim in April, 2000, believing that its wages are in line with the market place. The Union is also seeking the application of a long service increment (LSI) for workers on the top of the scale.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of October, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of February, 2002, in Cork, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a considerable difference between workers in the Company and those in other comparable companies, e.g. Irish Distillers and Showerings, particularly those on the maximum of the scale (details supplied to the Court).Some of the workers have 40 years service.
2. There is provision in Irish Distillers for a LSI of €1,078. This is on top of the difference at the maximum of the scale of €6,123.
3. The workers have been more than co-operative with the Company over years in terms of re-organisation and rationalisation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has consistently argued that the Sales Representatives' total remuneration package should be taken into account, rather than taking just one element, such as salary. When all elements are included e.g. profit share scheme, health insurance, pension etc. the package is broadly in line with Company's competitors.
2. By April, 2002, the Company will have paid out increases of 12.5% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
3. The Company's volumes have been in decline over the last number of years which requires a reduction in its cost base. The Company is due to lose the Carling Black Label brand in April, 2003, something which will have considerable impact on the sales function.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the serious situation facing the Company at the moment, the Court does not recommend an increase in pay as claimed. However, the Court recommends that an element of the bonus payment should be consolidated into each point of the salary scale. The Court, therefore, recommends the consolidation of the performance related element of the bonus. This element has been identified as
€1,270.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th February, 2002______________________
CON/MB
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.