Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94101 Case Number: LCR14384 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's proposals in relation to Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
This dispute is before the Court because of the failure of the parties
to conclude negotiations as recommended by the Court in LCR NO. 13996.
That Recommendation in turn was issued in response to a claim from the
Union for the implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P..
The Court was made aware of the Company's requirement to introduce new
work practices etc. since 1991/92. This became bound up with the
Clause 3 claim with the Company adding further items subsequent to the
issue of LCR13996.
The Court was presented with a list of Company requirements and Union
responses. It is accepted by the parties that the Company requirements
if acceded to by the Union would represent savings in excess of 3% of
Pay Roll Cost.
Notwithstanding the fact that this claim has already been the subject
of numerous local and conciliation meetings the Court is of the view
that the total requirements of the Company can only be agreed through
the process of negotiation / mediation and agreement.
Taking the above factors into account the Court recommends that:-
(1) The parties meet immediately to identify and agree items in
the Company's proposals which will meet the Union's claim for
3% and which will amount to as near as possible to 3% of Pay
Roll costs. The Court notes in this regard that certain
items have already been identified which are acceptable to
the Union.
The Court sees the implementation of this as the first phase
of dealing with the dispute and should conclude the dispute
with regard to Clause 3. The Court envisages these
negotiations concluding within 4 weeks of issue of this
Recommendation.
(2) The Court recognises that for the long term security of the
Company and the employees the additional items in the
Company's proposals must be addressed.
It is evident to the Court that some items of the proposed changes are
of a nature which would require an assessment by a job-evaluation
expert, and the Court in this regard recommends that an appropriate
person, i.e. a person acquainted with the industry be appointed to
conduct such as assessment.
The Court is of the opinion that the exercise referred to above - for
the benefit of all, should be concluded within a period of 3 months
from the date of issue of the assessors report. In the event of any
specific issue/issues being outstanding after the period of time
specified above, the Court is prepared to make a final decision on the
issue/issues on receipt of a joint referral by the parties.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94101 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14384
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's proposals in relation to Clause 3
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In February, 1993 the Dublin Printing Group of Unions'
claimed payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3
of P.E.S.P.. The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court
investigation and recommendation. In Labour Court Recommendation
13996, which issued in March 1993, the Court recommended "....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."
2. The Company entered separate discussions with each of the
Unions involved. In the case of S.I.P.T.U. (No. 2 Branch) the
Company proposals involved a reduction of 27 permanent positions
in the clerical area, to be achieved on a voluntary basis.
Details of the Company proposals are as follows:
PRESENT MANNING CO. PROPOSALS REDUCTION
Tele-Advertising Department 69 51+part-time (-18)
Finance and Administration 19 14 (- 5)
Newsprint Control 4 2 (- 2)
Circulation 2 1 (- 1)
Library 2 1 (- 1)
______
Total Reduction 27
The Union was prepared to concede a small number of redundancies but
rejected the Company's proposals, specifically in relation to the
Tele-Advertising Department. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and numerous conciliation conferences were held
between the 30th September, 1993 and 10th January, 1994. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
the 9th February, 1994. The Court investigated the dispute on the
14th March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that changes in work practices and some
redundancies are necessary. It is prepared to discuss these changes
in the context of the 1988. House Agreement and to the limit of the
3% provided for under P.E.S.P..
2. There is no justification for redundancies in the
Tele-Advertising Department. More efficient utilisation of staff
could be agreed. The Union cannot agree to redundancies in this area
in order to facilitate the recruitment of part-time staff.
3. The 1988 agreement could be used as a basis for facilitating
changes in an orderly and realistic fashion and could be amended
accordingly. It provides for systems development, review / reduction
of staff levels, revised operational procedures and increase /
decrease in workload
4. The workers concerned have already given significant co-operation
to the Company by way of staff reductions, co-operation with new
technology and reorganisation.
5. The Company cannot withdraw from the 1988 Agreement and impose
redundancies and changes in work-practices, substantially in excess of
the value of the 3% increase under P.E.S.P. (approximately seven times
its value). Changes in excess of the 3% must be negotiated
separately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's payroll costs are much higher than competitors and
must be reduced. Failure to do so could place the Company's future
business security at risk.
2. The Company's proposals provide for more competitive work
practices, the elimination of unnecessary functions, and flexibility
in working arrangements. Management must have efficient and
competitive work arrangements in the various departments. Its
proposals are set within the framework of the findings of the Joint
Committee on Development of the Newspaper Industry (Details supplied
to the Court). The Union's rigid adherence to the 1988 Agreement is
not realistic considering the present competitive climate.
3. The Company accepts that its proposals demand more than the 3%
increase provided for under P.E.S.P. and is prepared to negotiate a
slightly higher increase in return for acceptance of its proposals.
The Company's pay rates and conditions are far superior to
competitors. Concession of the 3% increase in return for identical or
corresponding cost savings or productivity, merely leaves the Company
at a stand still and fails to address its distinct disadvantage vis a
vis competitors. The Company has faced the competitive realities of
newspaper production. Its proposals are a step towards restoring a
level of operational efficiency and are in the best interests of
securing the long term future of the workers who remain in the
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute is before the Court because of the failure of the parties
to conclude negotiations as recommended by the Court in LCR NO. 13996.
That Recommendation in turn was issued in response to a claim from the
Union for the implementation of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P..
The Court was made aware of the Company's requirement to introduce new
work practices etc. since 1991/92. This became bound up with the
Clause 3 claim with the Company adding further items subsequent to the
issue of LCR13996.
The Court was presented with a list of Company requirements and Union
responses. It is accepted by the parties that the Company requirements
if acceded to by the Union would represent savings in excess of 3% of
Pay Roll Cost.
Notwithstanding the fact that this claim has already been the subject
of numerous local and conciliation meetings the Court is of the view
that the total requirements of the Company can only be agreed through
the process of negotiation / mediation and agreement.
Taking the above factors into account the Court recommends that:-
(1) The parties meet immediately to identify and agree items in
the Company's proposals which will meet the Union's claim for
3% and which will amount to as near as possible to 3% of Pay
Roll costs. The Court notes in this regard that certain
items have already been identified which are acceptable to
the Union.
The Court sees the implementation of this as the first phase
of dealing with the dispute and should conclude the dispute
with regard to Clause 3. The Court envisages these
negotiations concluding within 4 weeks of issue of this
Recommendation.
(2) The Court recognises that for the long term security of the
Company and the employees the additional items in the
Company's proposals must be addressed.
It is evident to the Court that some items of the proposed changes are
of a nature which would require an assessment by a job-evaluation
expert, and the Court in this regard recommends that an appropriate
person, i.e. a person acquainted with the industry be appointed to
conduct such as assessment.
The Court is of the opinion that the exercise referred to above - for
the benefit of all, should be concluded within a period of 3 months
from the date of issue of the assessors report. In the event of any
specific issue/issues being outstanding after the period of time
specified above, the Court is prepared to make a final decision on the
issue/issues on receipt of a joint referral by the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
24th March, 1994. ______________________
T.O'D./A.L. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea Court Secretary.