Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93126 Case Number: LCR14035 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the re-introduction of 4-shift working.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that, notwithstanding the fact that in
Recommendation 12771 it recommended the implementation of 4-shift
working, events subsequent to the issuing of that Recommendation
led the parties concerned into further negotiations which resulted
in an agreement which included an acceptance of 5-shift working.
While it is accepted by the Court that the Union reserved the
right to re-activate a claim for reversion to 4-shift working in
the event of no progress being made in a reversion to 5-shift
working in other areas of the Company, it does not consider,
having regard (1) to the overall content of the agreement, (2) to
the relatively short time span since its implementation, and (3)
to the factors which contribute to the necessity of 5-shift
working, that it can recommend in favour of the claim as made at
this time.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93126 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14035
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-introduction of 4-shift working.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim is on behalf of 43 Rotary Assistants for
reversion from a 9-shift fortnight (35 hours per week) to a
4-shift working week.
2. In February, 1991, an Agreement was reached with the Union
on manning levels, shifts, duties etc. which provided for a
9-shift fortnight. The workers were each paid #3,022 on the
signing of the Agreement.
3. The Agreement also stated as follows:
"The Union may reactivate its claim for the introduction
of a 4-shift week in the light of the outcome of
negotiations with other groups on the Company's
rationalisation proposals".
The Company had subsequently tried without success to get
other groups to agree to a 9-shift fortnight. The Union
raised the issue of reversion as per the 1991 Agreement in
January, 1992. The claim was rejected by the Company and it
was again raised in September, 1992.
4. Local negotiations were unsuccessful and the claim was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 27th November, 1992. A negotiated
settlement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 17th February, 1993 under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 15th March, 1993 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In signing the 1991 Agreement, the Union had negotiated on
many important issues in addition to the 9-shift fortnight.
In relation to the 9-shift fortnight, the workers concerned
are penalised by adopting a positive approach as they are now
working alongside other groups who still enjoy a 4-shift week.
2. The Company has had no success in negotiating a 9-shift
fortnight with any other Union. The 9-shift fortnight being
operated by the particular workers has led to major problems
and frustration. The workers believe that they are not being
treated fairly by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1991 agreement is barely 2 years old. The Company
made concessions in return for the Agreement and the Union is
now seeking to row back on its commitments. Any reversion to
4-shift working would put the Company at a severe competitive
disadvantage in relation to its competitors.
2. The Company has met with little success, for various
reasons (details supplied), in its attempts to get other
groups to agree a 9-shift fortnight. The 9-shift fortnight
remains the Company's objective. This is essential together
with other measures to ensure the long-term survival of the
Company. The Union's claim is totally at odds with the agreed
framework of progressively implementing competitive cost
structures. The Company cannot afford the extra costs which
concession of the claim would entail.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that, notwithstanding the fact that in
Recommendation 12771 it recommended the implementation of 4-shift
working, events subsequent to the issuing of that Recommendation
led the parties concerned into further negotiations which resulted
in an agreement which included an acceptance of 5-shift working.
While it is accepted by the Court that the Union reserved the
right to re-activate a claim for reversion to 4-shift working in
the event of no progress being made in a reversion to 5-shift
working in other areas of the Company, it does not consider,
having regard (1) to the overall content of the agreement, (2) to
the relatively short time span since its implementation, and (3)
to the factors which contribute to the necessity of 5-shift
working, that it can recommend in favour of the claim as made at
this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
14th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.