Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93640 Case Number: LCR14312 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the printing of dispatch labels.
Recommendation:
Having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, the Court agrees that there
has been an element of errors in the handling of this issue. This
chapter of events has been unhelpful in creating credibility among
the computer staff. Notwithstanding the manner in which the issue
has been handled, the Court notes the management statement that
the computer staff are fully productive and the guarantee that the
transfer of this work will not affect the staffing-level of the
computer operators. The Court also notes that the work of the
computer staff has been expanded and upgraded.
Accordingly, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court
recommends in accordance with the recommendation of the mediator,
that the computer staff accept that the dispatch staff pre-print
the labels for line 3 of the FERAG installation and the Company
pay to the computer operators concerned a lump sum of #1,000 in
full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93640 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14312
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the printing of dispatch labels.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute follows the rejection by the Union of a Company
proposal to have dispatch labels printed by the dispatch
department. The labels were previously prepared and printed in
the computer department. The proposed change arises from the
development of technology. The Union claims that the printing of
labels should either be retained in the computer area or should be
performed in the dispatch area by computer personnel. The
Company's position is that both these solutions are inefficient
and costly.
Negotiations took place between the parties in 1990 and an
independent 3rd party recommended the implementation of the
Company's proposals and that the security of employment of the
workers concerned should be guaranteed. The workers were to
receive #1,000 each for the acceptance of the changes. Matters
were complicated subsequently when solutions identified (including
an agreement reached in October, 1992) failed due to technical
difficulties which arose.
The dispute was the subject of conciliation conferences at the
Labour Relations Commission on the 12th of October, 1992 and the
24th of August, 1993, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th of
November, 1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relation Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 3rd
of December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The control and printing of labels is work proper to
members of the computer-room staff.
2. Currently, management are seeking nearly 30 redundancies
throughout the Company. Any loss of work from any area,
whether targeted for redundancy or not, is a highly crucial
issue for the workforce.
3. Under the 1990 FERAG Agreement (details supplied), the
Union conceded the transfer of a significant amount of that
work to the automatic FERAG system, pursuing a claim only for
the processing of those labels which can be and are being
physically and separately pre-printed. Management insist on
handing work over to staff to whom the work is not proper,
without consultation with the Union.
4. Having been party to an agreement that was based on
inaccurate management information, the Union is now in an
intolerable situation i.e., where work proper to computer
staff is being done by other staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The printing of Despatch labels was a clerical/computer
function in pre-FERAG times. That work was discontinued
subsequent to the "upgraded work" and the job-security
guarantees given in the June, 1990 Agreement. The Company's
general House Agreement of 1988 allowed for the upgrading of
commercial systems and for substitution of work of a higher
value in place of work of lower value (details supplied to
the Court).
2. Over recent months, while trying to resolve this matter,
the Company's customer-service has deteriorated as a result
of the disimproved quality of delivery of its products. This
has arisen due to the continued use of outdated and failing
equipment on line 3, i.e. the use of a H 500 unit.
This continuing unacceptable situation needs to be addressed
and the H500 unit will need to be replaced with the improved
H501 unit. Negotiations regarding computer labels have
impeded this.
3. Following the conciliation conference of the 24th of
August, 1993, the Company proposed a solution to the Union
(details supplied to the Court). It was proposed that the
1990 Agreement could be voided by the reversion to printing
old-style labels, as in the past. This would be regressive
and a waste of new technology and a waste of computer
operators' time. Alternatively, a new agreement could be
formulated which would recognise the fact that former
situations, as negotiated, are not technically/commercially
feasible. On the latter basis, the following conditions
would have to be incorporated into the agreement :
(i) The confirmation of the job security
guarantees already given ;
(ii) The recognition by the Union that off-line
printing of labels in a computerised
despatching-system is no longer productive
computer-work ;
(iii) That work proper to computer personnel is
computer-related, productive work, running
commercial systems/programmes for finance,
advertising, circulation and general
administration ;
(iv) That the computer personnel have a productive
role in the down-loading of despatch
information files to the FERAG system (as
happens for lines 1 and 2).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, the Court agrees that there
has been an element of errors in the handling of this issue. This
chapter of events has been unhelpful in creating credibility among
the computer staff. Notwithstanding the manner in which the issue
has been handled, the Court notes the management statement that
the computer staff are fully productive and the guarantee that the
transfer of this work will not affect the staffing-level of the
computer operators. The Court also notes that the work of the
computer staff has been expanded and upgraded.
Accordingly, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court
recommends in accordance with the recommendation of the mediator,
that the computer staff accept that the dispatch staff pre-print
the labels for line 3 of the FERAG installation and the Company
pay to the computer operators concerned a lump sum of #1,000 in
full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1993. Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.