Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9630 Case Number: LCR15087 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TERENURE PRINTERS LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION;GRAPHICAL PRINT & MEDIA UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Company's cost reduction proposals.
Recommendation:
The Court considered all the information written and oral
presented by the parities. It is clear that there is a
significant credibility problem between the parties, which must be
overcome in the interest of all concerned.
Continued intransigence on either side is likely to have serious
consequences for employment in the Company given the business
outlook as presented by the Company. It would appear to the Court
that there is still scope for further negotiations between the
parties.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties enter into
immediate meaningful discussions with a view to arriving at a
solution to the difficulties facing both sides. These
negotiations to be completed in 4 weeks from date of issue of this
recommendation.
A facilitator may be necessary to assist this process. If so the
services of the Labour Relations Commission would be appropriate.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9630 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15087
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TERENURE PRINTERS LIMITED
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
GRAPHICAL PRINT & MEDIA UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Company's cost reduction proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. Terenure Printers Ltd. is part of the Independent Newspapers
Group. Its own publications are the Sunday World and the
Daily Star. It also prints the northern edition of the Star
and the Irish edition of the Daily Express and the Farmers
Journal on contract.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's cost
reduction proposals (details supplied to the Court)
concerning approximately 44 workers employed by the Company
in the Pressroom/Bindery/Dispatch. The Company argues that
its cost structure is too high and that it is in danger of
losing contracts.
The proposals put forward by the Company do not involve job
losses but would involve changes in the shift hours worked
and a change in the overtime rates currently enjoyed. The
Company's proposals are unacceptable to the Unions.
In the period August, 1995 to January, 1996 local level
discussions took place between the parties but agreement
could not be reached and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. Two conciliation conferences
took place in January, 1996 but agreement could not be
reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
25th January, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
9th February, 1996.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has consistently rejected the case put
forward by the Unions for the employment of additional
staff. Management see its problem being solved by
reducing the rate paid for overtime. This position is
unacceptable to the Unions. These rates and conditions
were negotiated and are similar to overtime rates which
apply in the industry generally.
2. The Company's position which is causing concern is
brought about by (a) not having sufficient staff
employed; and (b) the variable nature of the work. At
certain periods of the year, staff produce the papers
without overtime because the information pages were
received from customers on time. Usually pages from
customers arrive late resulting in a delay in press
start times and a requirement for overtime.
3. The workers concerned have made a considerable
contribution to the Company and co-operated fully with
management in the introduction of changes over a long
period of time. It is unreasonable for management to
create a situation where overtime is required to produce
the various papers and then complain about the cost of
the overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current cost structure within the Company is too
high and the Company is in danger of losing two
contracts and consequently at least 14 jobs. Since 1988
there has been a gradual change in the size and context
of the products printed in the Company. Working
arrangements agreed over seven years ago do not now suit
the products or the current market requirement.
2. Management must instigate changes to satisfy customer
demands and to enable the Company survive in a highly
competitive marketplace and to protect the jobs of the
workers concerned. Unless the cost structure is reduced
the Company will end up with a reduced workload and
a reduced workforce.
3. Management acknowledges the commitment and co-operation
of the workers and is confident that if its proposals
are implemented the Company has a long-term future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered all the information written and oral
presented by the parities. It is clear that there is a
significant credibility problem between the parties, which must be
overcome in the interest of all concerned.
Continued intransigence on either side is likely to have serious
consequences for employment in the Company given the business
outlook as presented by the Company. It would appear to the Court
that there is still scope for further negotiations between the
parties.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties enter into
immediate meaningful discussions with a view to arriving at a
solution to the difficulties facing both sides. These
negotiations to be completed in 4 weeks from date of issue of this
recommendation.
A facilitator may be necessary to assist this process. If so the
services of the Labour Relations Commission would be appropriate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd February,1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.