Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93150 Case Number: LCR14037 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning the issue of protective notice.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
relating to the circumstances which led up to the issuing of
protective notice.
The Court is satisfied that in this case in which the publication
of the paper was put in immediate jeopardy by the threatened
action of a particular group, that the issuing of protective
notice was warranted.
In response to a specific request for clarification, the Court
further is of the opinion that the Company should not in future be
limited to issuing such notice to occasion when notice of
industrial action has been received or where such action has been
taken. The purpose of such notice is to protect the Company in
the event of a perceived threat to its ability to publish and is
not invalidated simply because the danger is not officially
sanctioned - and indeed may not relate to domestic difficulties
but external circumstances such as loss of power.
Finally whilst the Court does not consider the existence of such
notice coercive insofar as the notice, by its nature only becomes
effective if the threatened action takes place, the prolonged
existence of such notice is not conducive to good relations at the
workplace. The parties therefore should begin without delay to
deal with the problem which has given rise to the threat in the
first instance and in the longer term consider what changes if any
in the existing procedural agreements could be made to eliminate
as far as possible the necessity for protective notice to be
issued in the future.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93150 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14037
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 issue of protective notice.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which employs approximately 750 workers, is a
long establish newspaper publishing business.
3. On the 16th February, 1993, following a dispute with rotary
assistants over manning levels for the publication of a 56-page
Sunday Independent, the Company issued protective notice, to
expire on 4th March, 1993, to its entire staff. The notice
stated, inter alia, that in the event of any industrial action,
which would stop the publication of a newspaper, all workers would
be laid-off. The Group objected to the issue of the protective
notice, as in its view, it was in breach of the disputes
procedures.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 26th February, 1993. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 26th
February, 1993 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 11th March, 1993. The Court issued its
Recommendation by letter dated 5th April, 1993.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company, in issuing the protective notice is in breach
of the disputes procedures as all the procedures have not been
exhausted in dealing with the matter in dispute.
2. The Company has taken action against workers with whom it
has no dispute.
3. The Unions will now have difficulty in persuading their
members to adhere to procedures in the event of future
disputes.
4. The disputes procedures last so as to regulate industrial
relations and if they are not adhered to there could be
serious consequences for all concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The action of the rotary assistants showed a disregard for
recognised agreed procedures and nearly led to the loss of a
publication (details supplied to the Court). The Company
issued the protective notice to afford itself protection as
procedural agreements had been disregarded.
2. Failure to publish a paper due to unofficial action would
leave the Company in a position of having to pay 750 staff
whilst losing the sales and advertising revenue etc. from the
publication.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
relating to the circumstances which led up to the issuing of
protective notice.
The Court is satisfied that in this case in which the publication
of the paper was put in immediate jeopardy by the threatened
action of a particular group, that the issuing of protective
notice was warranted.
In response to a specific request for clarification, the Court
further is of the opinion that the Company should not in future be
limited to issuing such notice to occasion when notice of
industrial action has been received or where such action has been
taken. The purpose of such notice is to protect the Company in
the event of a perceived threat to its ability to publish and is
not invalidated simply because the danger is not officially
sanctioned - and indeed may not relate to domestic difficulties
but external circumstances such as loss of power.
Finally whilst the Court does not consider the existence of such
notice coercive insofar as the notice, by its nature only becomes
effective if the threatened action takes place, the prolonged
existence of such notice is not conducive to good relations at the
workplace. The parties therefore should begin without delay to
deal with the problem which has given rise to the threat in the
first instance and in the longer term consider what changes if any
in the existing procedural agreements could be made to eliminate
as far as possible the necessity for protective notice to be
issued in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
16th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.