Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9032 Case Number: AD9011 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH TIMES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 382/89 concerning interpretation of an agreement.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
correct in as far as the addendum agreed in 1987 altered Clause 18
of the Agreement but did not alter Clause 19.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9032 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1190
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH TIMES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 382/89 concerning interpretation of an
agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 the Company installed a new offset printing press at
its premises in D'Olier Street. Following negotiations with the
Union a comprehensive productivity agreement was reached covering
the operation of the new press.
3. Clause 18 of the agreement covered staffing levels and Clause
19 covered normal working arrangements in which minimum manning
levels were agreed. It was agreed that the staff level would be 7
and that minimum manning levels would be as follows:-
3 men up to and including 3 units in operation,
4 men with 4/5 units in operation.
It was also further agreed that if staff levels fell below the
minimum levels agreed emergency cover would be provided by trained
personnel from within the house.
4. In November, 1987 an additional worker was appointed to the
machine room staff and an addendum to that effect was added to the
agreement. Subsequently a dispute arose over the minimum manning
levels. The Union contend that they sought the appointment of the
worker to the section as the staffing levels needed to be
increased and that as a consequence the minimum manning levels
should also be increased accordingly. The Company rejected this
on the basis that the worker concerned was appointed on a personal
basis following representations from the Union and that the
minimum manning levels are adequate.
5. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and Recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 26th September and 19th October, 1989
following which he issued his recommendation dated 26th October,
1989:-
"The addendum to the Agreement was enacted in November, 1987
and clearly shows that a worker was "lifted and will become
an addition to the Machine Assistants Staff". Clearly if
this had referred to Clause 19 "Normal Working Arrangements"
then the minimum staffing stated therein would have been
amended at that time. Instead it was worked for a further
two years and upon a change of Shop Stewards the matter was
disputed. In fact the actual amended manning was not tabled
by the Shop Stewards until they were asked for it at the
investigation, and then only after a recess was requested.
In all the circumstances I find that Clause 18 was amended by
agreement and that Clause 19 was not. I therefore recommend
that the claim fails and that the whole question of minimum
manning levels can be discussed and agreed in the context of
the 6th Unit becoming operational."
6. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 2nd February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union sought the addition of an extra worker to the
rotary room to alleviate the workload there. The workload had
increased as a result of an increase in the size of the paper
and the development of colour advertisements (details supplied
to the Court).
2. The Rights Commissioner refers to the Works Study
Department of the Irish Times. However the Union considers
that not much weight can be attached to the consultants report
as he only presented himself at the work station on 3
occasions.
3. The reason that the men worked for two years without
raising the issue was due to the fact that it had been the
practice that there had been five men on the floor Monday to
Tuesday inclusive. In May, 1989 the worker here concerned was
on compassionate leave and the workers requested that the
trained man be brought in on nights to replace him. The
Company responded that they would have to work with four men
on the floor in accordance with Clause 19 of the agreement.
4. There are many precedents for the manning on the floor
being maintained at five (details supplied to the Court). The
Union is seeking an increase in minimum manning levels as it
was assumed that this would follow on as a result of the
increase in staffing levels.
7. 5. The Union considers that the Rights Commissioner's
reference to a sixth unit in his recommendation is
inappropriate. The sixth unit has not been installed, is
still under negotiation and is not covered by either Clause
18 or 19.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The current agreement was accepted by the Union after
lengthly negotiations prior to which the Union negotiators had
visited and seen similar presses in operation. The
arrangements in manning/staffing have operated successfully
since August, 1986.
2. There is no adverse effect on output from the Machine Room
as a result of agreed manning levels being in operation.
Finishing times are still within the contract hours i.e.,
staff contract finishing time 7.00 a.m. (which includes 1 hour
after press finishes for cleaning, washing plates. etc.)
3. A work study investigation carried out by the Company in
agreement with the Union clearly shows that manning levels are
correct.
4. To increase minimum manning levels as claimed would
seriously increase costs. The Company has already lost
several potential jobbing contracts because existing costs are
too high. Any further increase in costs would seriously
jeopardize future efforts to secure additional business in the
contract printing area.
DECISION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
correct in as far as the addendum agreed in 1987 altered Clause 18
of the Agreement but did not alter Clause 19.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__16th__February,__1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman