Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91138 Case Number: AD9132 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 48/91 concerning payments to press room staff for working four designated annual bank holidays.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that arrangements in the past were arrived at
in an unstructured way, and in a manner conducive to conflict.
The Court also notes that with the conclusion of a formal
agreement between the parties there should be improvements in the
industrial relations scene. The Court considers the agreement
should be put in place as quickly as possible. Having considered
all of the circumstances put forward by the parties in their oral
and written submissions the Court considers there are no grounds
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91138 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3291
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 48/91 concerning payments to press room
staff for working four designated annual bank holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. Up to 1988, the Company employed 8 permanent press room
staff. Casual workers were also employed as required. The rate
for the 8 permanent staff in August, 1988 was #406.22 per week.
This rate did not include payment for the working of four
designated bank holidays i.e. St. Patrick's Day, Easter Monday,
August Monday and Whit Monday. Overtime on the four bank holidays
was paid at quadruple time. In 1988, the Company acquired the
publishing rights to the Daily Star and the Daily Express
newspapers under contract. This created an additional 6 permanent
positions in the press room which were filled in 1989. The
additional 6 workers were paid at the rate of #350 per week
creating a pay anomaly in the press room area. In January, 1990
the Company introduced a new rate of #400 per week for all staff
in the press room area. The Company claims that the decision to
apply the rate of #400 was against the background of the staff
agreeing to work the four designated bank holidays inclusive of
the new rate. The Union claims that the workers were not informed
that the new rate was inclusive of the four designated bank
holidays when it was introduced. No agreement was reached at
local level negotiations and the dispute was referred to a Rights
Commissioner who investigated it on 12th February, 1991. The
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation on 13th
February, 1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
The system of settlement of claims in this employment leaves
a lot to be desired.
Increases have been paid in a totally unstructured manner.
This is of course a good system where the culture has
developed of 'give and take' by both sides. However in a
crisis situation such a system comes under severe pressure
and each party wishes to revert to what has been "agreed".
However, this is usually not easily definable and in this
case clearly so.
In these circumstances and having regard to the many
contradictions which emerged at the hearing in relation to
the facts, I must rely on comparisons externally to decide
whether in the last analysis the workers concerned are fairly
remunerated for the range of duties and responsibilities
which they undertake.
I have examined these and I am satisfied that based on a fair
comparison with their colleagues in the newspaper industry
generally, they are remunerated weekly on much higher rates
and in addition they also enjoy six weeks paid annual leave
as compared to 5 weeks for instance in the Irish Press Group.
In addition it cannot be ignored that further
re-organisations in all areas are currently being undertaken
in the Independent Group and the Irish Times and these will
result in pressure on existing wages and conditions which are
currently below those enjoyed by claimants.
Accordingly I recommend that the Union's claim fails for
these reasons. I further recommend that the parties should
now sign the proposed agreement which must include the
commitment to work the four named Bank Holidays for the
inclusive rate of #409 per 32 hour week.
In conclusion I recommend that the Company removes its threat
to revert to the previous number of permanent staff from the
17th February, 1991 as advised to the Union by letter dated
16/1/1991.
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 21st March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Company introduced a new rate of #400 per week
for all the press room staff the workers concerned queried
the change in their pay. Management explained that the new
figure was to bring everybody in the press room onto the same
rate of pay. They were not advised that the new figure was
inclusive of the four designated bank holidays. It was only
at a meeting with the Company approximately two weeks after
the rate of pay had been adjusted that the staff were
informed they would be required to work the four designated
Bank Holidays for the inclusive rate of #400 per week.
2. It is the responsibility of the Company when adjusting
rates of pay to state specifically the purpose for which the
adjustments are made. The workers should not suffer for the
Company's ineptitude in adjusting the rates of pay without
making them aware of the conditions applicable.
3. It is clear that the Rights Commissioner based his
recommendation to some extent on comparisons with other
employments in the newspaper industry. This suggests that
his decision was based on how the workers concerned are
remunerated in comparison with other employments rather than
the facts of the dispute as submitted by both parties.
4. The Rights Commissioner is correct in stating that
increases have been paid by the Company in a totally
unstructured manner. This has led to the divergence of views
regarding the conditions attached to the introduction of the
new #400 rate. When the present dispute is resolved the
Union is prepared to enter negotiations on a structured
agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The decision to apply the new rate of #400 was taken
against the background of the staff in the press room
agreeing to work the four designated bank holidays as part of
the inclusive rate. The then manager of the press room was
to advise the staff of this requirement. It was only
subsequent to the introduction of the new rate that the
Company was made aware of the Union's claim that staff were
not informed fully of the conditions attached to the
introduction of the new rate. The Union claims that the
workers were informed that there were no conditions attached
to the increase of #50 per week for the 6 additional
permanent staff. It is hard to believe that the Company
would award such high increases without some recompense.
2. Since the rate of #400 was introduced it has increased
to #409 per week and will attract further increases under the
Plan for Economic and Social Progress. If the Union's claim
were conceded it would pose an additional cost to the Company
of approximately #10,000 annually for publishing on the four
designated Bank Holidays. The Company cannot afford such
additional costs.
3. Due to the seriousness of the situation the Company
informed the Union by letter dated 16th January, 1991 that
as and from 17th February, 1991 it would be reverting to the
previous number of permanent staff in the press room (copy of
letter supplied to the Court). The Company has deferred its
proposed action for three months pending a resolution of the
present dispute.
DECISION:
5. The Court notes that arrangements in the past were arrived at
in an unstructured way, and in a manner conducive to conflict.
The Court also notes that with the conclusion of a formal
agreement between the parties there should be improvements in the
industrial relations scene. The Court considers the agreement
should be put in place as quickly as possible. Having considered
all of the circumstances put forward by the parties in their oral
and written submissions the Court considers there are no grounds
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th April, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman