Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93363
Case Number: LCR14227
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: W. J. DWAN AND SONS LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Claims by the Union for: (1) a review of the salary scale of sales representatives, (2) payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds as follows:
(A) Revision of Salary Scale:
The Court, noting the review carried out and accepted by
both parties in 1989 and the terms of Clause 5 of
P.E.S.P., does not recommend concession of this claim.
(B) 3% increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
In view of the information given to the Court, the Court
is of the view that it could not recommend concession of
the Union's claim as made.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93363 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14227
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: W. J. DWAN AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:
(1) a review of the salary scale of sales
representatives,
(2) payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is mainly involved in the wholesale distribution
of beers and soft drinks to the licensed trade. The Union's
claims were rejected at local level discussions and referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on the 22nd April, 1993. As no agreement was reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th June, 1993.
The Court investigated the dispute in Thurles on the 29th
September, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
Claim I - Review of salary scale
Background:
3. The parties reached agreement in 1989 on the introduction of a
15 point salary scale for 17 sales representatives. In December,
1990 the Union wrote to the Company claiming a review of the
salary scale. Management rejected the claim.
3
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The current salary scale of the workers concerned is
substantially less than salaries of workers in comparable
employments. The workers concerned are obliged to work hours
in excess of the average working week in order to fulfil
Company requirements. The Union is seeking a salary scale
with a maximum of #20,000 plus bonuses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company gave no commitment to review the salary scale
agreed in 1989 other than to pay the increases provided for in
accordance with the terms of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
2. The present remuneration package compares vary favourably
with comparable employments.
3. The Union's claim is cost increasing and precluded under
the terms of P.E.S.P.
Claim 2 - Clause 3 P.E.S.P.
Background:
6. In April, 1993 the Union submitted a claim for the 3% increase
provided for under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. Management rejected the
claim on the grounds that its financial state was precarious and
negotiations on the 3% were not appropriate.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
7. 1. The workers concerned have given substantial co-operation
to the Company by way of increased productivity. Many
comparable employments have paid workers the 3% increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
8. 1. The Company's financial position is precarious. It has
sustained losses over the past number of years (details
supplied to the Court). It is not an exceptional Company
within the parameters of Clause 3 and cannot afford to concede
the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds as follows:
(A) Revision of Salary Scale:
The Court, noting the review carried out and accepted by
both parties in 1989 and the terms of Clause 5 of
P.E.S.P., does not recommend concession of this claim.
(B) 3% increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
In view of the information given to the Court, the Court
is of the view that it could not recommend concession of
the Union's claim as made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
20th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.