Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93298 Case Number: LCR14123 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 43 workers, for an increase of 21% for Saturday night Sunday Independent rate for additional pagination.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has considered the submissions in this case,
together with the additional background information supplied at
the hearing.
Notwithstanding that a comparatively short period has passed since
the last agreement was drawn up and signed, the Court is of the
view that this particular claim, amongst other matters, should be
dealt with in the context of a new agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties immediately
commence negotiations on a new agreement covering the matter of
this claim and others as they decide are appropriate.
In the meantime the Court, in the light of the agreed report
submitted by the joint assessors, does not see any grounds for
recommending any increase in manning levels above that proposed by
the Company.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93298 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14123
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 43 workers, for an increase
of 21% for Saturday night Sunday Independent rate for additional
pagination.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company advised the Union in January, 1993 that it
intended to increase the size of the Sunday Independent from a 48
page to 56 page newspaper in order to provide readers and
advertisers with a tangible better value for money product, to
safeguard circulation in a decreasing market and to provide a base
for expanding revenues. The Company proposed 14th February, 1993
as the date for implementation.
3. Meetings were held at local level at which the Union sought an
increase in manning level of rotary assistants (the workers who
operate the printing presses) from 17 to 20. The Company rejected
the claim but at a meeting held on 12th February, 1993 agreed to
provide extra staff for the publication of 14th February, 1993
only and the dispute was to be referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. The Union rejected the Company's proposal.
4. A conciliation conference was held on 15th February, 1993 at
which it was agreed that the 56 page paper would be crewed by 20
workers for the following two weekends (20th and 27th February,
1993) pending the outcome of a work-study by two engineers, one
appointed by the Company, the other by the Union. The agreed
report was to be available by 3rd March, 1993 and a further
conciliation conference was to be held on 4th March, 1993 to
consider the findings. The report (details supplied to the Court)
recommended that the manning level should be 17. The report was
accepted by the Company and rejected by the Union, which sought a
meeting with the engineers in order to clarify certain aspects.
5. Following the meeting with the work-study engineers further
conciliation conferences were held on 19th and 29th March, 1993.
The Union agreed to work the new manning level under protest and
lodged a claim for an increase of 21% in the Saturday night rate
based on the increased productivity accruing to the Company as a
result of the manning level remaining at 17. The Company rejected
the claim but indicated its willingness to discuss a once-off
payment in return for the introduction of staggered breaks to
allow for an earlier finishing time on the shift. This proposal
was rejected by the Union.
6. The Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred the
dispute to the Labour Court on 6th May, 1993 for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The hours worked on pagination have increased since the
introduction of the 56 page newspaper. This has adversely
affected the workers concerned as regards time off at
week-ends (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Union's claim is based on the extra productivity
accruing to the Company, as identified by the Work-Study
Report, as a result of the increased pagination (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The Company is the most profitable of all national
newspaper companies.
4. The current manning level could not facilitate the
operation of staggered breaks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company fully accepts the Work Study Report. The
report upholds the Company's contention that a manning level
of 17 rotary assistants is adequate.
2. The Report noted that a combined utilisation of
approximately 60% between the assistants would cover the
workload associated with a 56 page newspaper. On this basis a
21% increase in reel handling productivity does not justify
the Union's claim.
3. The Company is willing to consider a once off payment in
return for the taking of staggered breaks.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has considered the submissions in this case,
together with the additional background information supplied at
the hearing.
Notwithstanding that a comparatively short period has passed since
the last agreement was drawn up and signed, the Court is of the
view that this particular claim, amongst other matters, should be
dealt with in the context of a new agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties immediately
commence negotiations on a new agreement covering the matter of
this claim and others as they decide are appropriate.
In the meantime the Court, in the light of the agreed report
submitted by the joint assessors, does not see any grounds for
recommending any increase in manning levels above that proposed by
the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________
30th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen Court Secretary,