Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91650 Case Number: LCR13618 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CORK EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS LIMITED - and - GRAPHICAL PAPER AND MEDIA UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the deployment of new managerial staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court
recognising the good climate of industrial relations that exists
in the Company is of the view that the parties should seek to
ensure that this climate is maintained and developed.
To this end the Company should seek to ensure that any perceived
change in policy feared by the staff is addressed.
In particular the Company should assuage any fear that the staff
have that their promotional prospects are being eroded.
All staff should be eligible to apply for all promotional
positions, including those in management and including those
filled on a temporary or acting basis, and such positions should
be filled in the normal way.
All employees should be advised that it is a union house and that
GMPU have sole ngotiating rights, the local branch secretary
and the Father of the Chapel should be advised when new staff
commence duty.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91650 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13618
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CORK EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
and
GRAPHICAL PAPER AND MEDIA UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the deployment of new managerial
staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with the Company regarding the
deployment of new managerial staff in the commercial area. In
October, 1991, a Temporary Circulation Manager was appointed
following the retirement of the Circulation Manager. The person
appointed is an accountant employed by the Company for the past
two years. The Administration Manager planned to go on holidays
and the Company felt that there was a need to gain a fresh
perspective on the work of that section. Accordingly, a temporary
relief appointment, also an accountant, was made. (This
accountant returned to his former position following the
Administration Manager's holidays). Neither of the two
accountants are members of the Union and the workers view the
appointments as being promotional opportunities taken away from
the Union "domain". The Union contended that these posts have
always been filled through internal competition. Local
discussions failed to resolve the matter and it was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission on
15th October, 1991. (The Company had initially refused the
Union's request that the matter be referred to the Commission as
per procedures under a Agreement of July, 1991). At a
conciliation conference on 31st October, 1991 a compromise
proposal was put forward that the accountants be used as
supernumeraries only within departments. The Company rejected
this proposal. As agreement could not be reached, the Commission
on 21st November, 1991, referred the dispute to the Labour Court
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 5th February, 1992,
in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In July, 1991, the Union agreed to a number of changes in
work practices and job losses. These included 23
redundancies, 10% reduction in night differential,
relinquishment of 2% of the 4% of Clause 1 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) etc.. (full
details provided). This was to be the limit of job losses and
changes in work practices agreed.
2. The Company has now introduced non-Union accountants from
the Financial Controller's Office into positions formerly held
by Union members and traditionally recruited from this area.
The Union believes that this could lead to additional job
losses on top of those agreed with the Company and could also
affect promotional opportunities. The Company's action is
also a departure from the recognition given under past
agreements that the positions concerned are traditionally held
by members of the Union.
3. A Union request for a return to the normal custom and
practice whch prevailed prior to the Company's unilateral
staff changes was refused. Union requests to use the
procedures outlined in the July, 1991, Agreement to resolve
the dispute were also rejected by the Company on the basis
that as far as the Company was concerned no problem existed.
The Union believes that the Company has acted in a manner and
spirit which is totally contrary to any Company/Union
Agreements.
4. Given the changes and sacrifices accepted by the Union and
other unions under the Agreement of July, 1991, there can be
no question of the willingness of the workers in helping the
Company overcome its trading difficulties but this willingness
should not result in the loss of promotional opportunities.
5. The Company has stated that the main role of the
accountants concerned is to upgrade systems within departments
as part of training and development proposals. The Union
contends that the proposal tabled at conciliation that the
particular individuals be regarded as supernumeraries, meets
the Company's objectives without disturbing promotional
opportunities and asks the Court to so recommend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. The Company has a long-standing record of facilitating
unions in carrying out their legitimate tasks. Contrary to
suggestions made, the Company is not and never has been
anti-union. The Company recognises staff's right to join or
not join a Union. It has not designated jobs on being union
or non-union positions. The Company will not discriminate
against an individual on the basis of his/her membership or
not of a union, nor is the Company prepared to have union
membership made a condition of employment.
2. The two accountants concerned have worked for the Company
for a considerable period. One has worked for 2 years, the
other for 3 years. During the period prior to their temporary
appointments to the positions in dispute, they worked
alongside Union members without being Union members. One of
the accountants was never asked to join the Union, while the
other was approached on one occasion to join the Union, but
declined to do so. Since the commencement of this dispute
both accountants have been approached to join the Union and
both have declined.
3. During the course of discussions with the Union on this
matter, the Company stated that it would be prepared to inform
all staff joining the Company that the Company is a 'Union
house' and that the Union has sole collective negotiating
rights. The Company would also be prepared to inform the
Union to approach these new employees.
4. In the past, the Company without any difficulty has
appointed non-Union staff to managerial positions in areas
where the Union has sole negotiating rights. The Company's
policy in relation to all appointments, is to appoint the
person best qualified to do the job. Given the Company's
current financial and competitive position, survival depends
upon utilising the best talent available. The two employees
temporarily appointed to the posts in question were the most
suitable for meeting the requirements of the posts.
5. The Company has pointed out to staff that professional
qualifications would be necessary if staff in the commercial
area are to progress. None of the staff in this area have
availed of the opportunities presented to obtain professional
qualifications. As a result of this, when the two positions
arose, the best qualified people were those who had
qualifications prior to joining the Company. The Company
remains committed to training its staff and providing the
opportunity to obtain professional qualifications. Staff who
avail of these opportunities will be in a better position to
achieve promotion in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court
recognising the good climate of industrial relations that exists
in the Company is of the view that the parties should seek to
ensure that this climate is maintained and developed.
To this end the Company should seek to ensure that any perceived
change in policy feared by the staff is addressed.
In particular the Company should assuage any fear that the staff
have that their promotional prospects are being eroded.
All staff should be eligible to apply for all promotional
positions, including those in management and including those
filled on a temporary or acting basis, and such positions should
be filled in the normal way.
All employees should be advised that it is a union house and that
GMPU have sole ngotiating rights, the local branch secretary
and the Father of the Chapel should be advised when new staff
commence duty.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
8th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.