Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92471 Case Number: LCR13841 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning the maintenance of benefits under an Income Continuance Plan.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the written submissions and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that the issues in dispute have been adequately negotiated by the
parties.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the income-continuance plan
continue in its present form until the end of the existing
contract with the insurers. In the mean-time the parties should
have further negotiations which, inter-alia, should deal with:-
- the real additional costs involved in the scheme having
regard to the nature of its origin and the fact that other
fringe costs would have been incurred had the alternative
wage increase been applied.
- the unsustainability of the ever-spiralling costs of the
scheme and the resultant need for a capping arrangement.
The Court has noted the Unions' agreement at the hearing to accept
one element of the changes to the Scheme proposed by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
______________________
13th November, 1992. Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92471 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13841
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the maintenance of benefits under an Income
Continuance Plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company introduced an Income Continuance and Spouses
Pension Plan in 1982. It was funded by the Company in lieu of a
2% increase in pay due under a National Wage Round in 1979. The
cost of funding the plan was 2.4% of payroll (1.68% in the case of
Spouses Pension and .72% in respect of the Income Continuance
element). The Income Continuance benefits are secured under an
insurance policy; the rate of premium is set triennially by the
assurers. The Spouses Pension is separately funded as part of the
overall pension scheme. In recent years the cost of funding the
income continuance portion has escalated from 1.58% in 1988 to
3.52% in 1991. Because of the increasing costs the Company
informed the Unions, at a meeting in November, 1991, that it
intended to maintain benefits at the approximate level which
funding at July, 1988 would provide (1.66% Income Continuance and
1.40% Spouses Pension). The Unions rejected the Company's
proposal. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 15th June, 1992. A conciliation conference was
held on the 24th July, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 7th August, 1992. A Court hearing was held on
the 21st October, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The original 2% was due to the workers concerned in March,
1979. The Income Continuance Plan was not implemented until
1982. The Company made no offer to the Unions in relation to
the outstanding arrears over the intervening 3 years and has
benefited by the non-payment of this 2% over the 3 years.
2. Workers who retired since 1979 did so on a pension which
was 2% less than they would have received if the National Wage
Round had been incorporated into pay rates. The 2% loss is
ongoing for the duration of their pensions.
3. While the Company may have had to increase the percentage
contribution on the payroll it has drastically reduced
staffing levels with a consequential reduction in its total
payroll. The increase was brought about by the insurance
Company which underwrites the plan and not by Union demands.
4. The Company is in a sound financial position and has been
extremely profitable over the past number of years. There is
no justification for the Company's decision to adopt a
penny-pinching attitude to social benefits. The benefits
offered in return for the 2% were offered by the Company and
accepted by the Unions which made them a condition of
employment. The Unions are not prepared to accept a
diminution of benefits payable to those workers on long-term
illness or to widows.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, in accepting the level of funding at 2.4% in
lieu of the negotiable 2% wage increase, made it absolutely
clear that it must reserve the right to modify, suspend or
discontinue the plan if future conditions warranted such
action. The Company, in discussions with the Unions, offered
to honour its commitment under the original plan and provide a
level of benefit commensurate with funding prior to 1991. The
Company's proposed funding of 1.66% more than honours the
original funding commitment of .72%. If the cost of providing
benefits were to continue to cost 3.52% (an increase of 2.8%
over 1982 funding) the workers should be prepared to make the
additional contribution.
2. The issue of the Company solely bearing the costs of the
scheme for the future must be considered in the context of the
overall extremely generous pay and conditions of employment of
the workers concerned (details supplied to the Court). The
Company believes it is reasonable to expect that, if more
comprehensive benefits are desired by staff, they should be
prepared to make an additional contribution to funding those
benefits.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the written submissions and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that the issues in dispute have been adequately negotiated by the
parties.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the income-continuance plan
continue in its present form until the end of the existing
contract with the insurers. In the mean-time the parties should
have further negotiations which, inter-alia, should deal with:-
- the real additional costs involved in the scheme having
regard to the nature of its origin and the fact that other
fringe costs would have been incurred had the alternative
wage increase been applied.
- the unsustainability of the ever-spiralling costs of the
scheme and the resultant need for a capping arrangement.
The Court has noted the Unions' agreement at the hearing to accept
one element of the changes to the Scheme proposed by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
______________________
13th November, 1992. Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.