Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9393 Case Number: LCR13996 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
7. Following the discussions which took place at the hearing, the
Court is satisfied that the parties understand the difference
between Clause 1 (Basic Increases) and Clause 3 (Local Bargaining)
of the P.E.S.P..
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.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9393 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13996
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
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 Company is long established with newspaper publishing
business. It employs 750 workers.
3. The Group lodged a claim in March, 1992, on behalf of the
workers, for the implementation of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. which
provides for an increase of 3% on basic pay to be negotiated at
local level in the second year of the agreement. The Company
rejected the claim.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
30th July, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 25th
September, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on the 2nd February, 1993 for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th
February, 1993.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. provides for the negotiation at
local level of an additional 3% of weekly basic pay. In
refusing to negotiate on Clause 3, the Company is in breach of
the P.E.S.P.
2. The Company is in a strong position in the market place
and is highly profitable.
3. Agreements on increased productivity and changes in work
practices have been freely negotiated and entered into by both
parties in the past. The Group has adhered to these
agreements. These agreements should not now be used by the
Company as justification for not entering into negotiations on
Clause 3.
4. The P.E.S.P. is a National Agreement and is binding on
both sides of Industry. The Court is asked to recommend that
the Company enter into immediate negotiations with the Group
on the implementation of the terms of Clause 3.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers enjoy excellent pay and conditions of
employment which are in excess of the Company's main
competitors (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company has yet to receive the full benefits of
productivity measures which have already been negotiated and
paid for (details supplied to the Court). This has impacted
adversely on the Company's competitiveness.
3. The Company's production costs are in excess of its
competitors.
4. Because of the cost disadvantages and the provision
contained in Clause 3 regarding competitiveness the Group's
claim has very serious implications for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Following the discussions which took place at the hearing, the
Court is satisfied that the parties understand the difference
between Clause 1 (Basic Increases) and Clause 3 (Local Bargaining)
of the P.E.S.P..
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.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
15th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.