Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93613 Case Number: LCR14246 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions, both written and
verbal, made by the parties.
In addition, the Court took into account the terms of LCR No.
13996 and events arising from that recommendation.
The Court is of the view that this dispute should still be capable
of resolution within the terms of LCR13996. However, the Court is
also of the view that the list of proposals submitted by the
Company for negotiation contains some which could have a very
wide-ranging effect on the Union's members and in some respects
could amount to an amendment of the Works Agreement.
The Court is satisfied that the following items as listed in
Management's submission (Page 13) could validly be considered as
outside the scope of negotiations envisaged under LCR13996 and
Clause 3 of the PESP.
ITEMS:
2. "New salary scales and shift conditions for
all new appointees."
8. "In special situations reporters and writers
to take photographs."
and Page 14, last item, as follows:
"Should any competitor enter the market or
take over an established newspaper and
negotiate any more favourable terms, the
Company will require the same operational
terms as a competitive right."
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union agree to enter
into negotiations immediately on the remaining items and the
Management for its part agree to omit the items listed above from
negotiation in the context of Clause 3.
In the event of the parties not reaching agreement they may
re-submit directly to the Court, for further recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93613 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14246
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the
terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company publishes newspapers and employs 750
workers. The dispute under consideration by the Court
concerns 204 Staff Journalists.
2. On 15th March, 1993, the Labour Court issued LCR13996
following an investigation concerning Clause 3 of the PESP
between Independent Newspapers and Dublin Printing Group of
Unions. LCR13996 recommended, inter-alia, as follows:
"The Court therefore recommends that both parties
exercise their option to enter into negotiations,
without prior conditions on either side, to see if
and how arrangements can be made whereby some or
all of the 3% may be paid in return for cost
savings, improvements in productivity etc., which
will take full account of the implications for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility and
change and the contribution made by employees to
such change."
3. Following on LCR13996, the Company issued separate cost-
cutting proposals to the various Unions representing the
different sections in the Company. The proposals which were
presented to the Journalists are as follows:
1. Rationalising regional offices in London, Belfast
and Waterford.
2. New salary scales and shift conditions for all new
appointees.
3. A reorganisation of the Photographic Department.
4. Installation of Picture Desk System into Editorial.
5. Mandatory review of all grade positions every two
years.
6. A detailed documented appraisal of each individual
NUJ staff member once a year.
7. Sub-Editors and Reporters to be interchanged as
required, particularly on major news and sports
events.
8. In special situations, reporters and writers to
take photographs.
9. Review of mandatory and non-mandatory meetings in
the light of the Labour Court Recommendation on
Protective Notice in relation to any perceived
threat to publication.
Voluntary Severance terms continue to be available.
Should any new competitor enter the market or take
over an established newspaper and negotiate more
favourable terms, the Company will require the same
operational terms as a competitive right.
4. The proposals were rejected by the Union and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 29th October, 1993. No
progress was possible and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 1st November, 1993. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 2nd November 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals are unrealistic under the terms
of Clause 3 of the PESP which only requires a reasonable quid
pro quo in exchange for the 3% increase. The Company's
proposals seek to renegotiate the entire House Agreement and
some proposals would require a Union rule change (details
supplied).
2. If the Company wishes to renegotiate the House Agreement
there is a mechanism within the Agreement for so doing. The
Union will resist any attempt by the Company to change the
Agreement in the context of Clause 3.
3. The Union's position is that since its claim for a 3%
increase under the terms of Clause 3 was lodged, the
journalists have given very significant productivity
concessions (details supplied). These concessions more than
warrant the payment of the 3% increase. The Company is
"exceptional" in the terms of Clause 3. Its comparisons with
other Companies within and without the State do not bear
close examination (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposals were tabled in response to and
in accordance with LCR13996. The proposals are negotiable
but any concession in relation to Clause 3 has to be centred
around them. What the Union was claiming as significant
change amounted to no more than co-operation with on-going
change and is not a basis for paying anything under Clause 3.
2. The Company must compete with both Irish and UK
competitors. This means that its payroll and other costs
must be addressed. The Company is at a significant cost
disadvantage vis a vis its Irish and UK competitors (details
supplied). The changes are required by market conditions.
3. The Company's proposals seek to adopt more competitive
working practices, the elimination of unnecessary functions
and more flexible working arrangements throughout the
organisation. The current proposals do not address the
Company's uncompetitive wage rates or working hours and in
this sense cannot be regarded as any more than a further
phase in the competitive restructuring of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions, both written and
verbal, made by the parties.
In addition, the Court took into account the terms of LCR No.
13996 and events arising from that recommendation.
The Court is of the view that this dispute should still be capable
of resolution within the terms of LCR13996. However, the Court is
also of the view that the list of proposals submitted by the
Company for negotiation contains some which could have a very
wide-ranging effect on the Union's members and in some respects
could amount to an amendment of the Works Agreement.
The Court is satisfied that the following items as listed in
Management's submission (Page 13) could validly be considered as
outside the scope of negotiations envisaged under LCR13996 and
Clause 3 of the PESP.
ITEMS:
2. "New salary scales and shift conditions for
all new appointees."
8. "In special situations reporters and writers
to take photographs."
and Page 14, last item, as follows:
"Should any competitor enter the market or
take over an established newspaper and
negotiate any more favourable terms, the
Company will require the same operational
terms as a competitive right."
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union agree to enter
into negotiations immediately on the remaining items and the
Management for its part agree to omit the items listed above from
negotiation in the context of Clause 3.
In the event of the parties not reaching agreement they may
re-submit directly to the Court, for further recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.