Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88694 Case Number: LCR12070 Section / Act: S67 Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS, PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 60 despatch workers for an increase of 6.13% in respect of the introduction of an improved labelling system.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that, while the labels now proposed for
introduction differ somewhat from those proposed in 1981, the
Company's proposal comes within the provisions of that Agreement.
The Court also notes the Company's undertaking that the
introduction of the new labels will not result in any reduction of
employment levels or loss of salary or overtime earnings. In the
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88694 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12070
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS, PLC
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 60 despatch workers for an increase of
6.13% in respect of the introduction of an improved labelling
system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company and the Union negotiated the renewal of a
productivity agreement in the despatch department in 1981. The
agreement provided for an increase in pay rates of the workers
amounting to 6.68% and also included a clause which referred to
the introduction of an improved labelling system. A demonstration
on the proposed system was given by management to Union
representatives and was mutually agreed. However due to prolonged
negotiations with another Union on a new circulation system, the
implementation of the new labelling system was delayed. In April,
1988 the Company informed the Union that it was ready to proceed
with the new labelling system and samples of the new label were
given to the Union. The Union however contended that the proposed
new labelling system was entirely different from that proposed in
1981, that it constituted new technology and that its members were
entitled to an increase of 6.13%. (This figure arose from
LCR11193 in May, 1987 in respect of a new technology payment claim
by another Union). Management rejected the Union's claim on the
basis that the 1981 Agreement provided for the introduction of the
new label, and as no agreement could be reached in discussion at
local level the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service
of the Labour Court on the 15th June, 1988. No agreement was
reached in these discussions and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 9th
September, 1988. A Court hearing took place on the 6th October,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is claiming an increase of 6.13% on basic pay
specifically related to the introduction of a new circulation
label used for delivery purposes. This claim is being
submitted as a result of the introduction of a computerised
labelling system resulting from the introduction of new
technology in the Company. In 1988 the Company negotiated an
agreement on new technology with the clerical staff and
arising from this the Company proposed introducing a new
labelling system in the despatch department. This was
approximately seven years after the renewal of the Despatch
Productivity Agreement. The new labelling system was entirely
different from that proposed seven years earlier. The effect
of the new label now proposed for use is to erode the work of
the Union's members. At present the labels are separately
applied to a top wrapper whereas the new label is in itself a
top wrapper. This effectively erodes 75% of the labelling
work in the department.
2. It is more than just coincidental that at this stage, the
Company produced an entirely new label which has the effect of
eroding the employee's work whilst at the same time the Union
is in negotiation with the Company on proposals to rationalise
the staff members in the Department. The Union is not
prepared to compromise its members' bargaining strength in
negotiations on rationalisation and new technology, by giving
away work at this stage, without recognition from the Company
that the introduction of the proposed new labelling system
warrants the payment of 6.13% new technology payment on the
basic rate. In other areas where new technology agreements
have been concluded, provision is made for the payment of
6.13% on basic pay to be implemented from the date of its
introduction. Payment would be made, at the end of an agreed
period of transition, in the form of a lump sum. The Union
did not agree with management on the improved labelling system
now proposed, which bears no resemblance to the type of system
proposed in 1981.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1981 the Company concluded a comprehensive productivity
agreement with the Union on behalf of its despatch members
which enhanced their rates of pay by 6.68%. The current rates
of pay are:-
Nights #332.90 per week
Days #288.35 per week
The agreement included a clause which specifically referred to
the introduction of a new label and stated "it is a condition
of this agreement that a new system of supplying labels from
the circulation department will be introduced." The clause
concluded:-
"this will not be ready for the implementation of the
renewal but will be operated as soon as practical."
The delay in the discussions to implement the new circulation
label arose because of protracted negotiations with another
Union on the implementation of new commercial systems.
2. The Union's claim for an increase of 6.13% on basic pay is
based on LCR No. 11193 which involved the introduction of
photo composition in the caseroom. The introduction of photo
composition resulted in 48 agreed staff reductions and
significant changes in work practices for the workers
involved. The Company maintains that the introduction of the
new label into the despatch process is not a comparable
situation and does not justify the payment of an additional
6.13% on basic pay, within the context of both the magnitude
of change which took place in the case room and the content of
the Labour Court Recommendation.
3. The cost of conceding the claim is #27,200 per annum. In
addition, a similar claim has also been presented on behalf of
48 transport staff who are also members of the Union, and in
that context the total cost to the Company would be #50,205
p.a. For many years the Company has been clearly
communicating the changing circumstances of the business to
all Union representatives and employees, the risks associated
with declining circulation volumes, and advertising shares
which have been a feature of the traditional Irish Newspaper
Industry. The Company has demonstrated to staff that the
traditional cost structures and work practices are now no
longer competitive or sustainable, and it must strive for
every conceivable competitive edge to enable it to compete in
the home market. The realities of a radically changed
environment demand a more competitive framework if the Company
is to survive and prosper. Concession of this claim would
increase costs and undermine the requirement for most cost
competitive structures.
4. The Company maintains that the present Agreement with the
Union allows for the introduction of the new label. The
implementation of the new labels in the despatch department
facilities a more accurate service to customers and has no
cost reduction benefit for the Company. Concession of this
claim would have serious implications for the Company's
relations with other Unions within the House who have given
significant staff and cost reductions in return for a payment
of 6.13% within the context of comprehensive agreements on its
first phase restructuring programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that, while the labels now proposed for
introduction differ somewhat from those proposed in 1981, the
Company's proposal comes within the provisions of that Agreement.
The Court also notes the Company's undertaking that the
introduction of the new labels will not result in any reduction of
employment levels or loss of salary or overtime earnings. In the
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____________________________
24th October, 1988
T.O'D./J.C. Deputy Chairman