FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AVERY LABEL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION) - AND - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 47 workers for payment of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions' claim was originally submitted in 1991 when discussions were held with the Irish Printing Federation representing companies in the printing industry. The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in 1993. The Court, in LCR14109 recommended as follows:
"It would appear to the Court that the only possible means open to the parties by which they will be able to comply with the full terms of Clause 3 would be for the parties actually to agree upon a "menu" of concessions from which each individual employer could choose to select those which meet the criteria for fulfilment of the terms of Clause 3 as already defined by the Court. Whilst clearly a difficult exercise the Court recommends that it be undertaken as the sole means by which the benefits of Clause 3 may be extended to the industry. In these circumstances the Court would further consider that defining the resultant adjustment in basic rates as the "stab rate" would be a contradiction in terms, the re-establishment of which would clearly need to await the end of the restrictions imposed by the terms of the principal agreement i.e. P.E.S.P. The same conditions, but to a lesser degree, would apply to the date of application of the outcome of negotiations on the amount".
While it was not possible to agree a 'menu' with the Irish Printing Federation, the Unions then proceeded to negotiate the increase with companies on an individual basis which proved very time consuming. The present claim was submitted by the Unions in January 1996. It was rejected by Management and was referred to the Labour Relations Commission in March 1996. No agreement was possible. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th April 1996. A Court hearing was held on the 13th May 1996.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Having regard to the terms of the P.E.S.P. and the subsequent Labour Court recommendation there is an obligation on the Company to have meaningful negotiations on Clause 3. The Unions accept that a quid pro quo is required in return for payment of the 3%. They do not accept the Company's stance in refusing to negotiate.
2. The increases provided for under the terms of the P.E.S.P. were modest and the right to negotiate was an essential element of the programme. It is totally unacceptable that the Company should refuse to negotiate. The Unions request the Court to recommend that immediate meaningful negotiations take place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company secured comprehensive agreements with the unions in the 1980s which covered work practices, flexibilities, training, hours of work and general conditions. It also concluded agreements on continuous running. These comprehensive agreements cover virtually all elements, which other companies sought from the Group of Unions in return for concessions under the P.E.S.P.
2. In recent months the Company reviewed work practices and concluded that, beyond agreements currently in force, it requires no additions or modifications.
3. The Company has paid successive wage increases despite the fact that it has been unable to pass on increased costs to customers.
4. The cost of funding the 3% increase would exceed £42,000 and would greatly affect competitiveness and impact adversely on the employment.
5. The Company's wages and conditions of employment are very good.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that no actual negotiations have taken place on this issue.
The Employer has indicated that there is no basis on which it can see the Company recovering the costs that would follow concession of this claim.
Given this position, the Court recommends that negotiations should take place between the parties based on a package of possible measures to be put forward by the employees within the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd May, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.