Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92414 Case Number: LCR13798 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim for an increase of #85 per week on basic pay for fitters.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in this case. In the first instance the Court is of the opinion
that the Union's claims under the headings of 'loss of relativity'
are not valid under the terms of the P.E.S.P. Furthermore under
the particular circumstances which obtain in the Irish Press the
Court is satisfied that their refusal to implement an acceptable
shift pattern, and their non co-operation with changes in work
practices and new production methods are in direct contravention
of the Supplemental Agreement of 1990.
For these reasons the Court considers that the Union's claim
cannot be sustained and it recommends that they cease all
restrictions on working practices immediately and proceed to
arrange for the implementation of a satisfactory shift cover
without delay.
On the question of the removal of helpers from the department, it
does seem to the Court that this was not an issue dealt with by
the Supplemental Agreement and therefore it warrants further
consideration by the parties. Subject therefore to acceptance of
the above terms the Court recommends that the present temporary
arrangement be continued to allow further negotiations on this
aspect of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92414 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13798
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase of #85 per week on basic pay for
fitters.
BACKGROUND:
2. Since 1989, the Irish Press has been involved in ongoing
rationalisation/restructuring with a view to achieving viability
and competitiveness for the Company. The Union has claimed an
increase in pay for fitters arising from work-practice changes,
and a loss of relativity with other Irish Press employees. The
Company rejected the claim as being without merit and states that
it cannot sustain cost-increasing claims during the lifetime of
the P.E.S.P.
The claim was discussed at a Labour Relations Commission
conciliation conference in November, 1991 and was the subject of a
Labour Court hearing on 13th May, 1992. The Court recommended
that an interim arrangement proposed by the Company whereby "24
hours at double-time would be distributed among A.E.U. Fitters" be
extended for four weeks, and that the claim for the #85 increase
be discussed with the Labour Relations Commission.
At the Labour Relations Commission another conciliation conference
was held, on the 29th of June, 1992, at which agreement was not
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990 on the 14th of July, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 11th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the Union's acceptance of L.C.R. 12932, the
following changes have taken place within the Irish Press
which the Union claims directly affect its members:
(a) Fitter manning has been reduced from eleven fitters
to eight.
(b) For the purpose of 'Collect Print', additional plant
is utilised, requiring additional input by fitters.
(c) Arising from 'Collect Print', fitters are required
to provide additional availability while this plant
is in operation as substantial changes are required
to the configuration of the machines prior and
subsequent to the 'collect print' operation.
2. The proposed reduction/elimination of five helpers was not
agreed to by the A.E.U. As part of the Supplemental
Agreement it was agreed that fitters and electricians should
work as a team, assisting one another as required. There is
no agreement to operate the maintenance Department without
assistants or to undertake their work in their absence.
3. There has been a "Loss of Relativity" with other Irish
Press employees; fitter's assistants, who transferred to the
Press Department received an increase of #64 per week
approximately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The fitters' claim for an increase of #85 per week is
based on the notion that they will absorb the fitter's
assistants' work, despite repeated assertions by the fitters
that they will not perform some aspects of that work, e.g.
'Tapes' (an integral part of machines and therefore the
responsibility of the Maintenance Department).
2. The fitters' claim for "Loss of Relativity" is rejected on
the grounds that no relativity exists between any groups of
staff in the Irish Press. The Company would not allow the
establishment of such relativities.
3. The fitters have not complied with the terms of the
Supplemental Agreement. In particular they have not accepted
a 5-shift/5-attendance roster, the absorption of fitter's
assistants' work or the 3-shift roster, i.e. day, afternoon
and evening shifts.
4. The Company has fully paid the fitters' loss of earnings
claim, amounting to #40,000.
5. Regarding the interim arrangement whereby fitters are in
receipt of 24 hours double-time for 3-press printing, the
Company estimates that the number of extra hours required for
3-press printing, outside of normal working is three hours.
The Company is willing to pay overtime for the hours actually
worked to the fitters who actually work the overtime on
3-press printing.
(6) The fitters' claims for a pay increase of #85 per week
cannot be sustained within to the constraints of the P.E.S.P.
The Union is well aware that no cost-increasing claims can be
served during the life time of P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in this case. In the first instance the Court is of the opinion
that the Union's claims under the headings of 'loss of relativity'
are not valid under the terms of the P.E.S.P. Furthermore under
the particular circumstances which obtain in the Irish Press the
Court is satisfied that their refusal to implement an acceptable
shift pattern, and their non co-operation with changes in work
practices and new production methods are in direct contravention
of the Supplemental Agreement of 1990.
For these reasons the Court considers that the Union's claim
cannot be sustained and it recommends that they cease all
restrictions on working practices immediately and proceed to
arrange for the implementation of a satisfactory shift cover
without delay.
On the question of the removal of helpers from the department, it
does seem to the Court that this was not an issue dealt with by
the Supplemental Agreement and therefore it warrants further
consideration by the parties. Subject therefore to acceptance of
the above terms the Court recommends that the present temporary
arrangement be continued to allow further negotiations on this
aspect of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
23rd October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.