FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - GRAPHICAL PAPER AND MEDIA UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for (1) loss of night differential, (2) change of shift start/finish times, increased weekend attendance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of 13 workers employed in the process department for compensation in relation to the impact on the workers of the introduction of a proposed new roster. The new roster has been devised in the context of an agreement regarding the implementation of the 3% under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) which involved the integration into the process department of two former wire room staff.
The Union claims that the new roster will result in:-
(a) A loss of night differential as the employees will work approximately
6 nights less per annum which will result in an annual loss of £443.94.
(b) Changing shift start/finish times and increased weekend attendance.
With regard to (a), the Company has proposed adding an equivalent amount annually to the Sickness and Holiday Cover payment and to (b), the Company has offered a total of £600 per employee in two phases of £300.
The Company argues that the issues before the Court arise directly from two Company/Union agreements in relation to the payment of the 3% under Clause 3 of the PESP and faxing equipment (details supplied to the Court) and the failure of the employees to work within the terms of the agreements.
Local level discussions took place but progress was not made and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 26th August, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30th October, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd December, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is concerned that management has accused it of breaking agreements. The Union has not broken any agreement and was always prepared to operate all of the equipment on the present roster.
2. The agreement in relation to Clause 3 of the PESP did not include a change of roster.
3. The negotiations have been compounded by management's continued efforts to broaden the issue of the introduction of a new roster. Management has repeatedly sought to secure more than the introduction of a new roster which the Union accepted in principle on 7th August, 1996.
4. The Court is requested to recommend £1,250 per quarter for each employee for Holiday and Sickness Cover for the loss of the night differential and £2,000 for compensation for extra weekend cover.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The requirement for a new roster arises from the joint agreement in relation to the application of the 3% under Clause 3 of PESP. The roster changes required have already been compensated for in that wage increase.
2. The Company has agreed to ensure that no losses accrue to the workers arising from the new roster and has offered a goodwill payment to acknowledge changes in shift/start/finish times.
3. The Company has heavily invested in picture desk and faxing equipment which will benefit the security of employment of the workers. In all other areas of the Company, major downsizing is being effected or is on the agenda for negotiation.
4. If agreements cannot be fairly and reasonably adhered to then the Company must review their operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions and recommends as follows:-
(1)Loss of Night Cover
- That the existing quarterly payment for Holiday and Sickness Cover be increased to all employees concerned by the equivalent loss in Night Differential i.e. £443.94 per annum, £110.99 per quarter.
(2)Change of Rostered Shift
- That each employee concerned be paid a lump sum of £1,000 payable in two phases of £500 each.
The Court would draw the attention of the parties to the need for full co-operation in respect of the changes that are necessary in the industry.
If for the future the Company is to continue to be successful and efficient and to maintain and secure the levels of employment it is imperative that both parties co-operate and in a climate of good industrial relations, ensure that no action is taken which will jeopardise the above objectives.
Disputes should be resolved through the expeditious use of the normal agreed Industrial Relations Procedures.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
23rd December, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.