Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95403 Case Number: LCR14871 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAILEY GIBSON - and - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS |
Implementation of Clause 2 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.).
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties.
It appears that there are two issues involved in this case, the
non payment of the PCW and the Company proposals to reduce unit
costs and improve productivity.
The Company had argued that it was under no obligation to pay the
PCW but in Court pleaded inability to pay.
The Court, having considered all aspects of this case, makes the
following Recommendation:-
(1) The Company to pay the PCW;
(2) The Employees to implement immediately the changes already
agreed but not yet implemented;
(3) The Parties to enter into meaningful discussions to agree
the necessary changes required to ensure the future of the
Company in the interest of all concerned.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95403 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14871
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BAILEY GIBSON
AND
DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
Implementation of Clause 2 of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.).
BACKGROUND:
The payment of Phases 1 and 2 of the P.C.W. are due since the
application dates of 1/2/94 and 1/2/95 respectively. The
Union sought implementation of the pay increases in
accordance with the P.C.W., and in line with the trend in the
sector. The Company responded that it was under no
obligation to pay the P.C.W. increases and has sought
productivity increases to cover the cost involved. The
dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under
the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, on the 24th
of May, 1995, at which agreement was not reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 4th of July,
1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on
the 3rd of August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The P.C.W., like other national agreements, was negotiated by
the social partners. Concessions, on the part of unions, are
not required in order to obtain the minimum increases set out
in the programme.
2. It has been the practice in the printing industry to
negotiate wage agreements with the Irish Printing Federation.
When agreement was reached all companies, including those not
members of the I.P.F., were notified of the new rates. This
is accepted practice and all companies have paid the new
rates, with the exception of Bailey Gibson.
3. It has not been the policy of the Group of Unions in the
past, nor will it be the policy in the future, to accept
agreements at national level and then to re-negotiate them at
local level.
4. The Company's claim of inability to pay is rejected.
National agreements should be implemented and any problems
arising subsequently should then be dealt with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company is loss-making as its unit costs are
uncompetitive. In particular, labour costs are
abnormally high.
2. A range of productivity measures has been addressed over the
past 4 years. However, the measures taken have not stemmed
the Company's losses. The Company has recently attempted to
negotiate productivity improvements to allow reductions in
unit cost whilst meeting the financial aspirations of the
workers. The Unions have become entrenched and have adopted
an intransigent position.
3. The productivity improvements being sought are normal by
industry standards and would be expected to exist in a modern
efficient operation.
4. It is the Company's wish to pay the PCW. If the productivity
measures, sought prior to the scheduled payment date of each
phase of the PCW, were to be implemented, the Company would
be in a position to pay that phase of the PCW.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties.
It appears that there are two issues involved in this case, the
non payment of the PCW and the Company proposals to reduce unit
costs and improve productivity.
The Company had argued that it was under no obligation to pay the
PCW but in Court pleaded inability to pay.
The Court, having considered all aspects of this case, makes the
following Recommendation:-
(1) The Company to pay the PCW;
(2) The Employees to implement immediately the changes already
agreed but not yet implemented;
(3) The Parties to enter into meaningful discussions to agree
the necessary changes required to ensure the future of the
Company in the interest of all concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.