Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8758 Case Number: LCR11193 Section / Act: S67 Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC - and - IPU |
Claim on behalf of 141 permanent workers for the application of a 15% new technology rate to the banded wage scale, for the introduction of photo composition.
Recommendation:
7. Bearing in mind
(a) the impelling competitive necessity for the Company to
justify investment in computerised photocomposition to
replace hot metal composition facilities,
(b) the current conditions of employment and levels of
remuneration applicable to I.P.U. members and
(c) its concern with the risk to employment levels in the
industry and the danger to which these levels are
exposed by the growing volume of imported newspapers
the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) that the I.P.U. staff fully co-operate in the
introduction, effective use and continuing development
of computerised photocomposition and the establishment
and subsequent maintenance of competitive cost
structures,
(2) that on the introduction of the new system, and in
consideration of such co-operation, that the Company
implement a supplementary photocomposition payment of
6.13% on basic rates - as the Court is of the view that
the 8.87% already granted to the claimants on foot of
ongoing technology is an ingredient of the technology
rate,
(3) the extension of the 6.13% supplementary
photocomposition payment to productivity rates should
be the subject of negotiation in the context of the
efficient use and productivity achieved from the
photocomposition system. The Court feels that the
extension of this payment should not involve an agreed
training period of more than one year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
22nd May, 1987 --------------------
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8758 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11193
CC8789 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11193
Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 141 permanent workers for the application
of a 15% new technology rate to the banded wage scale, for the
introduction of photo composition.
Background:
2. In July, 1974 a Photo Composition Agreement was reached
between the Irish Printing Federation (I.P.F.) and the Union which
provided for a single differential of 3% plus #2 for all
categories of workers engaged in photo composition work. (Copy of
agreement supplied to the Court). In the 1980 Agreement between
the I.P.F. and the Union (copy supplied to the Court) this
differential was increased to 15% for keyboard operators and 12%
for non-keyboard operators, arising from Labour Court
Recommendation No. 5580. Subsequently discussions took place
between the Irish Times and the Union on a claim for a new
technology rate following the introduction of new technology into
that Company. The matter was referred to an Arbitrator (Professor
McCarthy) who recommended, in his Report, that the rates provided
for in the 1980 Photo Composition Agreement between the I.P.F. and
the Union should apply in the Irish Times (copy of Arbitrator's
Recommendation supplied to the Court).
3. The Company has indicated to the Union that it proposes to
introduce up-date computer-based typographical processes (Photo
Composition) in its Abbey Street premises. The Union, on behalf
of the workers concerned, served a claim on the Company for the
introduction of a 15% new technology rate on the banded wage scale
of the workers employed in the Company's composing department, in
respect of the proposed introduction of new technology. The
Company rejected the claim and as no agreement could be reached at
local level the matter was referred, on 14th January, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference, held on 26th January, 1987, failed to resolve the
dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing arranged for
the 4th February, 1987, was deferred at the request of the Union
and the hearing then took place on 12th March, 1987.
4. At the Court hearing the Union sought, and was granted, an
adjournment of the proceeding to enable it to respond, in writing,
to the Company's detailed submission. A further submission was
received from the Union on 31st March, 1987 and the hearing was
resumed on 16th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) A 15% new technology rate was established for the
general printing and typesetting industry under the
1980 Agreement between the I.P.F. and the Union. This
rate was established as the new technology rate in the
Irish Times following the recommendation of Professor
McCarthy (Arbitrator) in 1980. As far as the Union is
concerned this recommendation established the Dublin
new technology rate as 15% for newspapers. In this
regard, it was never the Union's intention that
different new technology rates should apply in the
three Dublin newspapers with another possible rate
applying in the Book and Commercial Houses.
(ii) The Company disputes the fact that the 15% in question
was applied in the Irish Times, and considers that
even if it is the established rate it might not apply
in full, as the Irish Times had already paid some of it
by way of incorporation of machine extras (i.e. 3%
linotype rate) into the band rates. However, it is
clear from the Arbitrator's recommendation that 15% is
the new technology rate and that this did apply in the
Irish Times. Also, when the machine extras, including
the 3% linotype rate, were established in June, 1971,
at which time Dublin newspapers were members of the
I.P.F., no increase applied to the band rates in the
Company (details supplied to the Court). The only
increase shown for that period in the Company is a wage
increase under the National Wage Agreement applying at
that time.
(iii) During discussions at local level and conciliation the
Company never suggested that a differential of 8.87% in
respect of the teletype setting (TTS) keyboard
operation was incorporated in the band rates in 1970.
In the minutes of the meetings held in 1968, which
cover the formulation of the complete productivity
agreement for these workers there is no mention of the
incorporation of a TTS keyboard rate or lino rate into
the productivity rates. The fact that all other trades
have rates similar to the caseroom rate shows that
machine differentials are not part of the caseroom
rate.
(iv) The Company has placed a cost of #347,000 p.a. on the
differential associated with computer aided equipment
in Abbey Street. In return for the 6.68% wage increase
and the 8.3% valuation placed on conditions the workers
accepted computerisation which increased productivity
by 33.33% in a department outputting 60-70% of all
setting in the caseroom. These workers have received
no improvement in conditions since 1969 other than
those paid for by increased productivity.
(v) Management's contention that Professor McCarthy's
report cannot be construed as establishing a 15% photo
composition rate for the newspaper industry is rejected
by the Union as it was the only investigation carried
out into the newspaper industry and his award is in
line with the 15% which applies in the commercial
houses.
(vi) Management's contention that terms and conditions
applying in the Independent in Abbey Street, are very
generous should be looked at in the light of the
functions fulfilled by the caseroom members of the
Union. This Union is the only Union which has an
individual measured productivity scheme and even at
that the top rates are surpassed by at least two other
unions. The workers work unsocial hours and on bank
holidays. No compensation is paid for week-end working
and only the statutory minimum is provided for bank
holidays.
(vii) Since the document "Planning for Progress" was launched
in 1984 the Union has not sought any permanent staff
replacements for members who retired through age or
ill-health. By July next 21 jobs will have fallen into
this category and the resultant savings from these
staff reductions alone will be in excess of #500,000
p.a. If Management succeed in achieving their hoped
for reduction of 48 jobs in the IPU area savings of
#1,152,000 p.a. will accrue at current levels. This
figure also assumes that the remaining staff will
suffer no reduction in earnings. The cost factor
figure of #485,000 per annum for 141 employees equates
to a claim of 21% at the current average rate for day
and night workers. The number involved in the claim is
136 and this number is bound to be further reduced on
the introduction of new technology as some members will
be availing of early retirement. The delay in
finalising the figure is entirely due to the tactics
which the Management have adopted in current wage round
talks and new technology negotiations. In the event of
Management achieving their proposed staff reduction of
48 in the Caseroom area the total cost of the claim
would amount to #286,820. This figure should be offset
against projected wage savings of #1,152,000.
(viii) Suppliers of camera ready copy to new entrants to the
newspaper market (Sunday Tribune and Sunday World), in
addition to the Irish Times staff, are all paid the 15%
photocomposition rate.
(ix) Graphs produced by Management show a decreasing share
for newspapers of media spending but do not reflect the
position of Independent Newspapers which claimed a 12%
increase in advertising last year in its annual report.
(x) With regard to Management's arguments regarding the
problems facing the Company and the newspaper industry
the Union would point out that advertisements appeared
recently in Independent publications showing a massive
increase in dividend rates and projecting Independent
Newspapers as a booming and vibrant company. When the
"Planning for Progress" document was launched in 1984
the capitalised value of Independent Newspapers was
slightly over #28m. The current stock market valuation
is #113m - a quadrupling in less than three years.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company pays productivity bonus rates of 115% over
and above the so called "stab" rate on which the 15%
photo composition differential rate claim by the Union
is based. At minimum, 8.87% of this differential is
already included in Company wage rates, for Teletype
setting keyboard operation. Furthermore, there is an
additional cost of #347,000 per annum (or 14.98% of the
Company's inflated productivity wage rates) of
differential associated with computer aided equipment
in Abbey Street, included in the Company's wage rates.
(b) The 15% photo composition differential which applies to
keyboard operators in Irish commercial print houses,
arising from an agreement formulated between the Union
and I.P.F. in 1980, cannot be interpreted as applying
to the Company since it was not party to this
agreement; the Company, as well as the other two Public
Publishing Houses, being represented by the Dublin
Newspapers Managers Committee. In any event, this
differential was applied to a basic rate which is less
than half the Company's inflated productivity rates.
(c) Professor McCarthy's report, arising from his role as
arbitrator in the Irish Times, cannot be construed or
interpreted as establishing a 15% photo composition
rate differential as a rate for the newspaper industry.
(d) The terms and conditions at present applying to the
Union members employed by the Company are exceptionally
generous by any standard. These conditions are already
uncompetitive.
(e) The traditional newspaper industry is under threat
from other media, from new competitors entering the
home market and from a totally restructured U.K.
industry. This requires an immediate and substantial
reduction in the Company's costs to enable it to
compete. The realities of the Company's position are
clearly illustrated and enunciated in the Company
document "Planning for Progress" (copy supplied to the
Court) and comprehensively outlined in the Report of
the Joint Committee (copy supplied to the Court) to
which all unions subscribed including the Union
concerned.
(f) Wages and related costs are now 75% of the Company's
costs (excluding newsprint). It is in this area the
Company must achieve major cost adjustments.
(g) In this regard the Company's main competitor within the
country - the Press Group - has already currently
achieved wage savings of the order of 31%.
(h) New entrants into the newspaper market have been
allowed cost structures and working flexibilities by
the Union which have been denied the Company.
(i) As the company is producing products which compete in
the mainstream of the market it is particularly
vulnerable to U.K. competition. The Sun, the Daily
Mirror, and the Star are actively investigating the
Irish market with a view to providing full scale Irish
editions. These companies have transformed their cost
structures over the past twelve months. Cost is the
proven platform on which these papers have achieved
their enhanced penetration of the Irish market since
1980. The platform they have now established means
that a concentrated attack can be mounted extremely
quickly.
(j) In all the circumstances outlined, the Company's
proposal that photo composition be accepted by the
Union without additional cost to enable the Company to
close the competitive gap and help to ensure its
survival, should be agreed to by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Bearing in mind
(a) the impelling competitive necessity for the Company to
justify investment in computerised photocomposition to
replace hot metal composition facilities,
(b) the current conditions of employment and levels of
remuneration applicable to I.P.U. members and
(c) its concern with the risk to employment levels in the
industry and the danger to which these levels are
exposed by the growing volume of imported newspapers
the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) that the I.P.U. staff fully co-operate in the
introduction, effective use and continuing development
of computerised photocomposition and the establishment
and subsequent maintenance of competitive cost
structures,
(2) that on the introduction of the new system, and in
consideration of such co-operation, that the Company
implement a supplementary photocomposition payment of
6.13% on basic rates - as the Court is of the view that
the 8.87% already granted to the claimants on foot of
ongoing technology is an ingredient of the technology
rate,
(3) the extension of the 6.13% supplementary
photocomposition payment to productivity rates should
be the subject of negotiation in the context of the
efficient use and productivity achieved from the
photocomposition system. The Court feels that the
extension of this payment should not involve an agreed
training period of more than one year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
22nd May, 1987 --------------------
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman