Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92369 Case Number: LCR13736 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SCIPRINT LIMITED - and - GRAPHICAL, PAPER & MEDIA UNION |
Replacement wage agreement
Recommendation:
Having carefully considered the submissions made by the parties
the Court has come to the conclusion that it would not be in the
long term benefit of anybody concerned if a situation were allowed
to develop whereby different Unions or groups within the plant
were to have different agreements and different conditions.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company renew its offer to
the G.P.M.U. to implement the agreement with effect from 6th April
and this offer should be accepted by the G.P.M.U.
Further the Court recommends that the Company increase its offer
of a lump sum buy out of the travel allowance to all concerned to
the equivalent of 15 months.
In the event of the buy out not proving acceptable the allowance
should stand as it presently exists to be a specific issue for
negotiation at the termination of the agreement in 1984.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92369 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13736
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SCIPRINT LIMITED
AND
GRAPHICAL, PAPER & MEDIA UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Replacement wage agreement
BACKGROUND:
The Company was formed in 1988 following a buy out of Irish
Elsvier Printers Limited (IEP). All employees of I.E.P. were made
redundant and subsequently re-employed by Sciprint Limited.
Agreement was reached on a house agreement negotiated at the
commencement of the worker's employment. The workers are members
of the I.P.U. and the G.P.M.U. Since 1988 all house agreements
have been negotiated with both unions. In late 1991 the Company
put forward proposals for a replacement wage agreement (details
supplied to the Court). Although the existing agreement was not
due to expire until August, 1992, it was proposed that the new
agreement would be effective from 6th April, 1992. In return the
Company sought full co-operation in the moves towards the
attainment of ISO 9002 (Printing Industry Standard). Agreement
was reached with the I.P.U. and the agreement was implemented for
them. Agreement was reached with the G.P.M.U. on all points with
the exception of clause 16 of the agreement which refers to travel
allowances. A proposal that the agreement be implemented and
refer the matter of the travel allowance to a Rights Commissioner
was rejected by the Company. An offer by the Company of a
lump-sum buy out of the travel allowance was rejected by the
Union. The Company subsequently invoked Clause 18 of the
agreement in which the Company reserved the right to withdraw all
offers contained in the agreement if agreement could not be
reached in full. Following a ballot for strike action, the
Company referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 5th June, 1992 and as no
agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour
Court on 25th June, 1992. The Court hearing took place on 14th
July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The intention of the Company to erode the value of the travel
allowance without any compensation is unjust.
2. The travel allowance has not been adjusted since 1989. The
practice had been that travel allowances were reviewed in line
with movement in public transport costs.
3. Workers are entitled to protect their conditions in respect
of the travel allowance. The additional cost to the Company is
such that scope exists to make the appropriate adjustment.
4. The dismissive manner in which the Company approached the
recognised procedures for resolving disputes will explain the
climate in which the chapel measured the reluctant statement by
the Company that they would engage in discussion on the travel
allowance when the next review of the agreement was due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company has made a generous offer in bringing forward the
date of the new agreement by four months.
2. The Company has increased social benefits and wage rates to
the maximum possible in the present economic climate.
3. The agreement represents a range of improved benefits to all
the staff. The Company are not prepared to increase benefits in
favour of a minority of the staff.
4. The Union used the ISO 9002 situation as a disruptive
negotiating point.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions made by the parties
the Court has come to the conclusion that it would not be in the
long term benefit of anybody concerned if a situation were allowed
to develop whereby different Unions or groups within the plant
were to have different agreements and different conditions.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company renew its offer to
the G.P.M.U. to implement the agreement with effect from 6th April
and this offer should be accepted by the G.P.M.U.
Further the Court recommends that the Company increase its offer
of a lump sum buy out of the travel allowance to all concerned to
the equivalent of 15 months.
In the event of the buy out not proving acceptable the allowance
should stand as it presently exists to be a specific issue for
negotiation at the termination of the agreement in 1984.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th August, 1992 John O'Connell
F.B./M.H. --------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.