FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : P. J. CARROLL & COMPANY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay Scale
BACKGROUND:
2. The Dispute concerns the pay rates of approximately 20 Business Development Executives (BDEs). The parties were involved in negotiations on the re-structuring of the Sales Division in the Company in 2003. An agreement was reached in 2004 which gave rise to a number of redundancies and the creation of new job roles (BDEs), and new pay rates. In effect workers negotiated their own salary. Prior to this, workers had been paid the National Wage Agreement and a salary review. The Union's case is that since the agreement in 2004 some of the workers concerned receive the National Wage Agreement while the remainder receive an annual salary review which pays the equivalent of the National Pay Agreement in most cases. The Union believes that its members' pay have fallen behind its competitors, and cited Gallaghers and Players as examples. The Union is seeking the introduction of a pay scale to which incremental pay increases and the National Wage Agreement will apply. The Company has rejected the claim.
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 23rd of March, 2007, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of June, 2007. Following the hearing the parties were asked to try and sort out the various issues. Although the parties met again on a number of occasions they were unable to reach agreement and asecond Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th March, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basic salary range in the Company currently is from approximately €31,000 to €59,000 spread across 20 workers. There is no published pay scale which is a concern to the workers. The result is a list of individual staff on different pay rates, which are difficult to follow, and in many cases do not relate to experience in the business.
2. The Company has fallen behind both of its main competitors - Gallaghers and Players - in pay terms because of the present system. The Union is willing to be flexible in negotiations with the Company but proposals put to the Company following the first hearing (details supplied to the Court) were rejected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost-increasing and, as such, is prohibited by the terms of Towards 2016. The Company has honoured the terms of all the National Wage Agreements in full.
2. The Company is not looking for anything extra from the BDEs nor is it seeking a productivity agreement. The claim is simply about a pay increase. The Company indicated a willingness to increase the salaries of 12 BDEs but this was rejected by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the offer previously made by the Company to increase the salaries of some BDEs.
The Court believes that this should be accepted by the Union and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim as made.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19th May, 2008______________________
CON/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.