Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94334 Case Number: LCR14536 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRESS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning: (1) Manning-level in the press department; (2) Saturday night off in holiday week.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties, is
of the view that the Union's claim with regard to manning-levels
is not soundly based and, accordingly, does not recommend its
concession.
With regard to the claim for Saturday night off in holiday week,
whilst not recommending concession of the claim as made, the Court
would urge that management sympathetically consider any revised
roster submitted by the Union which would meet the Union's claim
in providing full weeks off during Winter/Spring holidays whilst
at the same time maintaining the minimum 35-hour week and
manning-levels required by the Company, at no additional cost.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94334 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14536
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH PRESS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:
(1) Manning-level in the press department;
(2) Saturday night off in holiday week.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Manning-level:
Under the 1990 Supplemental Agreement between the
parties, the agreed manning-level for the press
department is 50. At present, 3 of the 50 are on
'income continuance', with a consequent reduction in
staffing to 47. The Union is seeking the restoration of
the manning-level to 50. The Company claims that it has
not been the practice to replace workers who are on
'income continuance', as they are entitled to return to
work when medically fit.
2. Saturday night off in holiday week:
The Union claims that, subsequent to the introduction of
6 weeks' holidays, the workers found that when they took
their Spring and Winter weeks they were required to work
the Saturday night (Sunday Press) shift rather than
having a full week (i.e. 5 shifts) off. The Company's
position is that the rosters were drawn up by the
workers themselves and that to concede an extra shift
off would have serious cost-implications and knock-on
effects.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 22nd of April,
1994, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 20th of June, 1994, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 25th of
July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. Manning-level:
1. The Company is in breach of custom and practice and of
the 1980 cover agreement. (Details supplied to the
Court).
2. The Company is in breach, also, of its policy as stated
to the Labour Court, and the terms of LCR13745, which
recommended "that the Company continue its policy of
providing training and otherwise assisting messengers to
improve their job prospects".
Saturday night off in holiday week:
1. Of the 6 weeks' holidays, four weeks are taken
individually at management's insistence. A Saturday off
is not permitted at the beginning or the end of a week's
holidays. Holidays should be given on the basis of
three 2-week periods, which would allow for one Saturday
off in each 2-week period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. Manning-level:
1. There are 13 staff in other departments on income
continuance. These positions have never been replaced
with permanent staff.
2. It would not be fair or equitable to make an exception
in the press department, especially as there is still a
considerable number of shifts surplus to requirement.
3. Concession of the claim have serious knock-on effects
within the Company, and with other groups.
Saturday night off in holiday week:
1. The granting of a further reduction in Sunday Press
attendance would, in effect, further reduce the 46 weeks
attendance to less than 45 and a half weeks.
2. The Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, states that holidays
may be determined by the employer.
3. The Union failed to provide a Winter/Spring '93/'94
holiday list. They have already, however, provided a
Summer, 1994, list.
4. Traditionally, Summer holidays have been for two weeks
together. All other holidays have been taken as single
weeks. It was not part of the 1990 agreement, when
holidays were increased, that extra Saturday nights off
would be granted.
5. Concession of the claim would have serious cost-
implications and would lead to knock-on claims from
other unions within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties, is
of the view that the Union's claim with regard to manning-levels
is not soundly based and, accordingly, does not recommend its
concession.
With regard to the claim for Saturday night off in holiday week,
whilst not recommending concession of the claim as made, the Court
would urge that management sympathetically consider any revised
roster submitted by the Union which would meet the Union's claim
in providing full weeks off during Winter/Spring holidays whilst
at the same time maintaining the minimum 35-hour week and
manning-levels required by the Company, at no additional cost.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
M.K./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.