FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UPC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Interpretation of a 'sales through lead/service'' programme in the Customer Service Area.
BACKGROUND:
2. UPC is a fast growing US multinational communications company based in Limerick and is part of Liberty Global. It offers it customers television, broadband and telephone services. The dispute concerns the interpretation of a 'sales through service' (STS) programme in the customer service department by Workers being proactive in promoting the Company's products and services at every opportunity while in contact with customers on the telephone. Commission is paid if their 'lead' is converted into either an enquiry or a sale. When the practice was first introduced in 2008 a 2% target rate for all calls received was set. In 2012 a dispute arose when twelve Workers were disciplined by way of a verbal warning for failing to reach their target. The Union argue that no discussions or agreement regarding the necessity for Workers to generate sales took place with Management and that all disciplinary measures should be rescinded forthwith. Management refer to a flexibility clause in the contracts of employment and are not willing to concede to the Union's claim.
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 21st December 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th August, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the practice was introduced it was for a trial period as an incentive to the Workers and was not performance related. Workers are willing to participate in the programme but are not willing if failure to reach targets could ultimately lead to their dismissal.
2. When a customer phones regarding a difficulty they are experiencing with with either their service or reception, it should be recognised by Management that it may not be an opportune occasion to try and interest them in considering or purchasing any of the other services/bundles available.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company/Union Procedural Agreement of 2008 provides for the Company's right to 'plan, organise, manage, schedule work, assign tasks, decide shift work, introduce new methods, alter on target earnings, introduce new technology/equipment to achieve optimum competitiveness, efficiency, effectiveness and cost controls / reductions. The scope of the Agreement also refers to 'the effective use of labour' being essential to competitiveness.
2. The targets are achievable and realistic with 83% of Workers reaching their goal. Coaching and developmental sessions are dedicated to assisting those underperforming. The Company cannot concede it's right to set objectives in line with it's strategy and manage the performance of the Workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission of the parties the Court is satisfied that the work associated with the 'sales through lead programme' is an integral part of the contractual employment duties of those associated with this claim. Furthermore, the Court cannot hold that the use of the Company's disciplinary code is an inappropriate mode of promoting adherence to a required standard of performance.
For the avoidance of doubt all employees should again be fully informed of this requirement.
There appears to be some genuine issues concerning the manner in which the targets used by the Company are applied in practice and, in particular, the type of calls that are to be taken into account in their application. The Court further recommends that discussions take place between the Company and the Unions to clarify the position in that regard.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th September, 2013______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.