FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAWN DAIRIES AND SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay and lunch allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court relates to a driver working for Dawn Dairies in Castlebar, Co. Mayo. The Union is seeking to have the same basic pay and lunch allowance payments applied to the claimant as apply to his Galway colleagues.
Dawn Dairies is part of the Kerry Group and is involved in the production and sale of many dairy products. The Company have different sets of pay terms for employees located in both Galway and Mayo. These packages are based on the location, work output and the demands of the customer within the designated work base area. The Company maintains the overall package yields different pay rates for staff based in Galway and Mayo. The Company claims that the claimant does not earn the same basic rate or lunch allowance payment as his Galway colleagues but earns a much higher commission payment.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th December, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker has been employed with the Company for approximately 7 years and he claims that the wage and meal allowance paid to him is far less than his counterparts enjoy in the neighbouring county.
2. The Union argues that commission is anaddedincentive for workers to achieve a greater level of sales and the Company benefits from the effort and initiative of employees in achieving greater sales.
3. Commission cannot be deemed to be a steady and secure foundation for a wage structure. If sales dropped the worker would face serious financial problems through no fault of his own.
4. As regard to lunch allowance the worker concerned receives€5.81 per week, whereas the Galway workers receive€5.40 per day.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company contends that the worker is attempting to cherry pick favourable elements of the Galway package while still enjoying the commission structure that applies in Mayo.
2. It is not commercially possible to operate different elements of each separate package as each element was introduced to deal with market conditions and to present attractive sales incentive remuneration terms to drivers. Any alteration or adjustment to these structures would be detrimental to the entire van sales operation and would remove the key link between sales performance and salary potential.
3. The need for the Company to maintain and operate a sales incentive reward system for staff is part of the structure that will ensure a viable future of the Dawn Dairies business.
4. It is imperative that the Company maintain a pay and commission structure linked to sales performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the claim by one driver based at the Company’s plant in Castlebar for basic rates and lunch allowances which apply at the Company’s Galway plant.
The Court is satisfied that the payment systems which apply in both locations are based on different methodologies however, the Court is equally satisfied that the systems are not unfair. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the claimant is not entitled to the basic rate of pay, which applies at the Galway plant and therefore rejects the claim.
Having examined the claim for the lunch allowance which applies at the Galway plant, the Court has formed the view that the lunch allowance which applies at the Castlebar plant is out of line with generally established allowances and recommends that the parties should meet to discuss this aspect of the claim, with a view to adjusting the allowance upwards.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th_March, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.