Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93430 Case Number: LCR14161 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRESS PLC. - and - AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION |
Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR13798.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in the light of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, recommends that the Company
and the Union discuss the implications for the maintenance
department of the agreement on maintenance assistants and the
operation of "Collect-printing", together with any other issues
which either party may wish to raise. These discussions to be
completed as quickly as possible.
In the interim and pending the outcome of the discussions referred
to above, the Court recommends that the payment of #65 per week be
reduced by an amount of #10 for each successive 4-week period from
the date of issue of this Recommendation.
In the event that the parties fail to reach agreement, the Court
will review the negotiations and may issue a Recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93430 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14161
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PRESS Plc.
and
AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR13798.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 11th September, 1992, the Court investigated a claim
for an increase of #85 per week on basic pay for fitters, arising
from changes in work-practices. While not conceding the claim, the
Court, on the basis that the issue of helpers had not been
resolved, recommended inter alia that
"On the question of the removal of helpers from the
department, it does seem to the Court that this was not an
issue dealt with by the Supplemental Agreement and therefore
it warrants further consideration by the parties. Subject
therefore to acceptance of the above terms, the Court
recommends that the present temporary arrangement be
continued to allow further negotiations on this aspect of the
Union's claim.".
Subsequent to the issue of LCR13798, the Company claimed that as
the issue of the helpers had been resolved, an interim payment of
#65, which had been introduced in May, 1992, should cease. The
Union maintained, however, that the issue of the helpers, which
they claimed has not been resolved, was only one aspect related to
the payment and that extra duties, etc., relating to changes in
work-practices warranted the continuation of the interim payment.
The Company sought clarification of the Recommendation on the 6th
July, 1993. The Court investigated the dispute on the 23rd July,
1993 and issued its Recommendation by letter to the parties on the
30th of July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no dispute between the parties as long as the
payment of the #65 continues. Should the Company terminate
the payment, without agreement, the workers have made it clear
that they will not undertake necessary work associated with
"Collect-printing".
2. At a meeting with the Company on the 30th of June, 1993
the issues in dispute were clearly identified as:
(i) duties and responsibilities associated with
"Collect-printing",
(ii) fitters working without the help of maintenance
assistants.
The Company has refused to negotiate on these issues.
3. The current payments are fully justified when the duties
and responsibilities of fitters are taken into account. These
payments should be continued until such a time as the Company
is prepared to negotiate an alternative arrangement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company and Union have agreed at local level that the
interim payment is tied into issues related to maintenance
assistants and "Collect-printing". Three maintenance
assistants have been appointed to the maintenance department
(in line with L.C.R. 13798). The Union, however, has not made
any arrangement for the implementation of satisfactory
shift-cover. The Company's understanding of L.C.R. 13798 was
that once the issue of maintenance assistants was finalised
that the interim payment should cease.
2. The Company is confident that the work for which 21 hours
per week double-time is being paid, can be done during normal
working-hours. In the event of overtime being worked, payment
will be made to the individuals concerned for hours overtime
actually worked.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, in the light of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, recommends that the Company
and the Union discuss the implications for the maintenance
department of the agreement on maintenance assistants and the
operation of "Collect-printing", together with any other issues
which either party may wish to raise. These discussions to be
completed as quickly as possible.
In the interim and pending the outcome of the discussions referred
to above, the Court recommends that the payment of #65 per week be
reduced by an amount of #10 for each successive 4-week period from
the date of issue of this Recommendation.
In the event that the parties fail to reach agreement, the Court
will review the negotiations and may issue a Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
30th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.