Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93264 Case Number: LCR14109 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRINT UNION - and - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
8. It would appear to the Court that the only possible means open
to the parties by which they will be able to comply with the full
terms of Clause 3 would be for the parties actually to agree upon
a "menu" of concessions from which each individual employer could
choose to select those which meet the criteria for fulfilment of
the terms of Clause 3 as already defined by the Court. Whilst
clearly a difficult exercise the Court recommends that it be
undertaken as the sole means by which the benefits of Clause 3 may
be extended to the industry.
In these circumstances the Court would further consider that
defining the resultant adjustment in basic rates as the "stab
rate" would be a contradiction in terms, the re-establishment of
which would clearly need to await the end of the restrictions
imposed by the terms of the principal agreement i.e. P.E.S.P.
The same conditions but to a lesser degree would apply to the date
of application of the outcome of negotiations on the amount.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93264 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14109
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PRINT UNION
and
DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Print Federation (I.P.F.) is a Dublin based
employers organisation representing approximately 70 companies in
the Printing Industry. These companies employ approximately 3,000
workers. Conditions of employment and rates of pay in the
industry are governed by a Registered Employment Agreement
(R.E.A.).
3. In October, 1991 the I.P.F. and the Group of Unions entered
into negotiations on the implementation of an increase of 3% under
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Group sought to negotiate the
increase on an industry wide basis whilst the Federation sought to
deal with the matter at individual plant level. The issue was
referred to the Joint Industrial Council (J.I.C.) for the Printing
Industry. The J.I.C. met in November, 1991 following which it was
agreed to negotiate the increase industry wide subject to the
following:
(a) The disputes procedures in the P.E.S.P. and R.E.A. are
adhered to.
(b) An undertaking that the Unions will not approach
companies on an individual basis.
(c) While negotiations are at industry level there will be no
direct or indirect industrial action.
(d) Irrespective of what the P.E.S.P. says, any benefits will
apply from a date to be agreed. (No retrospection).
(e) It is recommended that negotiations begin in mid-January,
1992.
4. The Federation, at a meeting held in January, 1992 presented
the Group with a list of items it sought in return for concession
of the 3% increase. The items included flexibility, international
manning, removal of demarcations, and interchangeability. The
Group rejected the Federation offer on the basis that the value of
the concessions sought exceeded 3%. A number of meetings were
held during 1992 at which various options were explored.
5. No agreement was reached and at a J.I.C. meeting held on 10th
February, 1993 the parties agreed to a referral to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 10th May, 1993.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The value of the list of concessions sought by the
Federation exceeds the value of the 3% increase under the
P.E.S.P.
2. The changes sought by the Federation do not affect all
Unions within the Group.
3. The Group estimates the value of the 3% increase at 71
minutes production time and it has indicated its willingness
to negotiate on concessions to that value. The Group
identified two areas (payment of wages by credit
transfer/cheque and production at recognised times) where
negotiations could take place with a view to an equitable
settlement.
4. The Federation's proposals are unworkable as some
companies would seek more concessions than others while other
companies would resist applying the increase.
5. The Court is asked to recommend that the 3% increase be
applied industry wide and registered in the Register of
Employment Agreements.
FEDERATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. provides inter alia, that the 3%
increase be applied on a self-financing basis.
2. The concessions sought do not apply to all companies.
Individual companies have different requirements and it is the
Federation's view that the increase should be negotiated
locally under the plan put forward by the Chairman of the
J.I.C.
3. The Court is asked to recommend that the Group enter into
negotiations locally and embrace items that are specific to
individual member companies.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. It would appear to the Court that the only possible means open
to the parties by which they will be able to comply with the full
terms of Clause 3 would be for the parties actually to agree upon
a "menu" of concessions from which each individual employer could
choose to select those which meet the criteria for fulfilment of
the terms of Clause 3 as already defined by the Court. Whilst
clearly a difficult exercise the Court recommends that it be
undertaken as the sole means by which the benefits of Clause 3 may
be extended to the industry.
In these circumstances the Court would further consider that
defining the resultant adjustment in basic rates as the "stab
rate" would be a contradiction in terms, the re-establishment of
which would clearly need to await the end of the restrictions
imposed by the terms of the principal agreement i.e. P.E.S.P.
The same conditions but to a lesser degree would apply to the date
of application of the outcome of negotiations on the amount.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
21st June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.