Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9076 Case Number: LCR12787 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK EXAMINER - and - NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION;NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of phases 2 and 3 of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.)
Recommendation:
5. The Court in its consideration of the submissions of the
parties notes that they have taken account of the circumstances of
the Company in discussions regarding the implementation of the pay
terms in the Company. The Court also notes the parties have been
unable to reach agreement.
Given the circumstances of this case and the issues raised by each
party it is the view of the Court that the pay provisions of the
Programme should be implemented.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the outstanding phases of
the pay agreement be implemented from the due dates (i.e. 1st
January, 1989 and 1990 respectively).
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9076 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12787
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORK EXAMINER
and
NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of phases 2 and 3 of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.)
BACKGROUND:
2. The last wage agreement for the workers prior to the P.N.R.
terminated in December, 1987. Following discussions, the first
phase of the P.N.R. was implemented on 1st May, 1988. The Unions
subsequently sought implementation of the second phase of the
P.N.R. which was due on 1st January, 1989. However, management
proposed no increase for 1989 with the third phase paid from
April, 1990. This was unacceptable to the Unions and on 20th
November, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 16th
January, 1990 at which agreement was not reached and on 30th
January, 1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 21st February, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The P.N.R. was negotiated between the Government and the
social partners and its terms are mandatory on the unions and
employers. There is no inability to pay clause in this
agreement. The Company is involved in a major structural
alterations of the its offices and employed a team of
consultants following which it announced major management
positional titles and employed extra accountants. In short,
the Company is engaging in large scale capital outlay but the
workers, despite their long-standing loyalty to the firm, are
not receiving the full P.N.R. entitlements. The workers are
entitled to the full phasing and terms of the P.N.R., in line
with all other workers throughout the country.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In April, 1989 management met with the joint union house
representatives and gave them a detailed presentation of the
Company's financial position showing the trading position over
the last eight years (details supplied to the Court). To pay
the 1989 claim would cost #250,000 and with the carry-over,
including the proposed increase for this year, would increase
wages for 1990 by over #500,000. The average wage for the
workers was #25,000 in 1989 and this does not include the
Company pension contribution of #750,000 per annum. The
payment of the 1989 increase would eliminate the majority of
last year's profit. The Company must live within its income
and must make profit for reinvestment.
2. The Company is now in a market where local radio is a very
active competitor. Local radios are paying their workers far
less than the workers concerned, despite the Company's
requests to the Unions to ensure that the same wage levels
apply. In addition, the Company is in the near future likely
to have to contend with another locally produced newspaper,
again possibly with lower rates of pay. The Company must be
prudent in its policy on pay increases in order to protect the
livelihood of 392 workers. In pursuing this claim the Unions
should be mindful of the Company's position in the market. In
addition, account should be taken of clause 3 of the P.N.R.
which states that due regard should be taken of the economic
and commercial circumstances of the firm or industry involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in its consideration of the submissions of the
parties notes that they have taken account of the circumstances of
the Company in discussions regarding the implementation of the pay
terms in the Company. The Court also notes the parties have been
unable to reach agreement.
Given the circumstances of this case and the issues raised by each
party it is the view of the Court that the pay provisions of the
Programme should be implemented.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the outstanding phases of
the pay agreement be implemented from the due dates (i.e. 1st
January, 1989 and 1990 respectively).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__20th__April,__1990. ___________________
U.M. / J.C. Deputy Chairman