Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94455 Case Number: AD9467 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 140/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and in the
light of the evidence (not disputed) that the 'Farm Press' payment
was confirmed as part of other negotiations with the claimant in
September, 1992, the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is not unreasonable and should be
upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94455 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
AND
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW
140/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by a worker for compensation for
loss of earnings incurred by him following the cessation of
publication of the 'Farm Press'.
The worker, who was appointed to the position of Assistant
Editor (Features) in 1992, had received an additional weekly
payment of #100.00 on foot of extra duties carried out by
him, on the Farm Press, from 1989, until publication ceased
in April, 1994.
The Company rejected the worker's claim for compensation.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
hearing on the 30th June, 1994. The Rights Commissioner
found that, on balance, some modest compensation was merited
and recommended that the worker accept the sum of #1,500 in
settlement of the dispute. The Company appealed the
Recommendation on the 29th of August, 1994 in accordance with
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 6th of September, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The payment for work on the Farm Press did not form part
of the worker's basic salary. It was explained to him
in 1992, that the additional payment of #100.00 per week
could not be guaranteed as the continuation of the Farm
Press was in doubt.
2. The current financial state of the Irish Press is
critical. The publication of the Farm Press was
discontinued due to a downturn in business.
3. Decisions to include or exclude columns or sections are
entirely a matter for the editor and the Company. The
Company should not be put in a position where changes to
its publications could result in claims for
compensation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was offered the position of Assistant Editor
(Features), in September, 1992, at a salary of #23,000.
At the time, his basic salary, as permanent lay-out sub
on the Irish Press, was #19,000. He also received an
additional #5,000 per annum for duties performed on the
Farm Press, effectively raising his salary to #24,000.
Additional responsibilities on the television page
brought his total salary to approximately #30,000 per
annum. When offered the position of Assistant Editor
(Features), the worker indicated that he was not
prepared to accept a drop in salary (i.e. from #30,000
to #23,000). Shortly afterwards, he was again offered
the Assistant Editor (Features) position, at a salary of
#26,520 per annum and was advised that he could retain
the work on the Farm Press, bringing his total salary to
#31,500 approximately. He accepted the position on
those terms.
2. During these negotiations, there was no indication given
to the worker that the Farm Press would be dropped in
the event of cutbacks. His understanding was that the
#100 per week was a specific inducement to him to take
up the Assistant Editor (Features) position, which was a
much more responsible position than the one he held at
the time.
3. The worker has financial commitments which he entered
into based on his salary #31,500.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and in the
light of the evidence (not disputed) that the 'Farm Press' payment
was confirmed as part of other negotiations with the claimant in
September, 1992, the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is not unreasonable and should be
upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st October, 1994 EVELYN OWENS
M.K./D.T. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.