Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87172 Case Number: LCR11148 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION - and - IPU |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of approximately 500 workers, for a revision of the photocomposition agreement, a 35 hour working week and 5 weeks holidays.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the proposals which emanated from
the Conciliation Conference (see page 2) be amended as follows:
Paragraph 1 and 4 - no change.
Paragraph 2 - Substitution of 22.50% for 20%.
Paragraph 3 to read as follows:
"Electronic input from external sources will be
processed. Any requirement to replace composition
work, traditionally undertaken by I.P.U. members in a
particular company will be subject to prior discussion
with the union."
The Court recommends that these amended proposals be accepted by
the parties.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87172 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11148
CC861599 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11148
Parties: IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of approximately 500 workers,
for a revision of the photocomposition agreement, a 35 hour
working week and 5 weeks holidays.
Background:
2. In May, 1984, the Union requested discussions with the
Federation to review their photocomposition agreement and claimed
an increase in the differentials on the basis that equipment with
page make-up facilities was not covered by the existing agreement.
The existing photocomposition agreement provides for plus rates of
12% for paste-up and 15% for keyboard work. The Union sought an
increased plus rate for all composing room staff where page
make-up terminals and tapes from outside sources are used. The
Federation rejected the claim for a revision of the agreement but
undertook to consider an additional equipment classification. In
respect of such equipment the Federation were prepared to agree a
17.50% extra on basic, on the understanding that it would be subject
to absorbtion by existing payments and agreement on the handling
of electronic input from external sources. In subsequent meetings
between the parties, the Union requested the inclusion in the
agreement of an appropriate clause to cover V.D.U. usage policy.
The Union put the proposals arising from negotiations, including
the definition of the additional equipment classification to which
the 17.50% differential would apply and the proposed terms on the
use of V.D.U's to its executive committee. On 11th June, 1986,
the Union informed the Federation that the proposals had been
rejected and a new claim was submitted for 40% extra on basic
rates, a 35 hour week and 5 weeks' holidays. This claim was
rejected by the Federation. On 30th September, 1986, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At
a conciliation conference on 20th October, 1986, the following
proposals were put to both parties as a recommended settlement
basis:
(i) An additional classification will be added to the photo
composition agreement to cover makeup terminals used
for merging text and graphics to produce page
origination in typographical font and point size and
the equipment necessary to process electronic input as
described at 3.
(ii) A 20% extra on basic rates will apply to staff
operating such equipment on the clear understanding
that it will be subject to absorption by existing
payments over the rate.
(iii) Electronic input from external sources will be
processed. Any proposal to replace composition work
traditionally undertaken by I.P.U. members will be
subject to prior discussion with the Union.
(iv) That the parties recognise that the effective use of
video display units or terminals will be improved by a
suitable work environment in accordance with guidelines
from equipment manufacturers or other recognised
sources on screen and keyboard design, lighting,
seating, ventilation and arrangements for eye testing
of prospective operators.
The proposals were rejected by a secret ballot vote of the Union
and on 5th March, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 2nd April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Since the establishment of the plus rates in 1980,
there has been a considerable development in technology
which has led to the handling of tapes and automatic
page make-up by workers. This, combined with an
extension of the use of V.D.U's led the Union to open
negotiations with the Federation with a view to
revising the agreement to cover these new areas. The
proposals put forward by the Federation were
unrealistic insofar as they offered only an increase of
2.50% for the new technology and the handling of
electronic input.
(b) The employers have been treated fairly by the workers,
insofar as they have continued to operate the
equipment, despite a demand from some section's that
the work in question be blacked. The Union decided to
pursue the matter through the normal process.
(c) There are at least two houses in Dublin who have agreed
with the Union an additional payment for the operation
of full page make-up which approximates very closely to
the Union's claim for 40% of the basic rate.
(d) The use of magnetic tapes will lead to a considerable
reduction in keyboarding and make-up even within the
parameters acceptable to the Union. It also provides
the employers with the opportunity to go into markets
both home and abroad from which they are presently
excluded. As the proposals would lead to a
considerable loss of work for the workers concerned, it
is the view of the Union that the effects of this
should be ameliorated in part by the reduction of the
working week to 35-hours and additional holidays. The
employers for their part, while stating that our claim
is not justified at the same time want the tapes from
outside sources, etc, handled by the workers concerned.
It is obvious that there is quite a considerable
benefit to the Federation in having an agreement which
covers these areas and therefore the Union believes the
claim is justified.
Federation's arguments:
4. (i) It is imperative for companies in the industry to
invest in modern technology and to update it on an
ongoing basis to ensure full and effective use in an
effort to maintain existing typesetting and printing
business, to preserve the security and level of
employment to the maximum possible extent.
(ii) In this changing market and technical environment
unrealistic claims for improvements in pay and
conditions can only increase the potential and
permanent loss of typesetting business for companies to
input sources outside the conventional industry with
significantly lower cost structures. The Federation is
increasingly and seriously concerned with this trend
which jeopardises viability and security of employment.
(iii) The photocomposition agreement provides percentage
levels (15% and 12%) of photocomposition extras linked
to basic rates which adequately compensate staff for
operating text inputting systems, which are now in
general use both within the conventional printing
industry and outside it. The Federation is seriously
concerned to maintain the competitive position of
member companies relative to similar photocomposition
agreements and rates in the provincial sector of the
Irish commercial industry and in the U.K. where British
printing companies are major competitors in American
and European markets (details supplied to the Court).
(iv) Any increase in the 17.50% proposed by the Federation for
the additional equipment classification, subject to
absorbtion, will worsen the competitive position of
companies in the home and export markets.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the proposals which emanated from
the Conciliation Conference (see page 2) be amended as follows:
Paragraph 1 and 4 - no change.
Paragraph 2 - Substitution of 22.50% for 20%.
Paragraph 3 to read as follows:
"Electronic input from external sources will be
processed. Any requirement to replace composition
work, traditionally undertaken by I.P.U. members in a
particular company will be subject to prior discussion
with the union."
The Court recommends that these amended proposals be accepted by
the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
30th April, 1987.
B.O'N./J.C.