FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION (IPF) - AND - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS (DPGU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment for transport workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for the full rate for transport workers (male) at 18 years of age.
In April, 1997 at a meeting of the Joint Industrial Council for the printing industry the Union side stated that some companies in the industry are paying transport workers (general operatives) on an age related basis, while some are paying on a service basis. This means that a worker aged 21 with no experience could start in one firm on the senior rate, while the same worker with another firm would have to work for a number of years before reaching the senior rate of pay.
The Group's position is that it is unreasonable to expect general operatives to work three years with a company regardless of their age before receiving full pay. It argues that when the female apprenticeship was reduced to three years in 1991, it was the Unions' understanding that the age scale for males was also reduced to three years and would operate from 16 years to 18 years. The IPF argues that it cannot be seen to treat one group of learners more favourably than another.
As agreement could not be reached both sides agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court on the 25th of November, 1997 in accordance with Section 13 of the Constitution of the Council. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of February, 1998.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no connection between the rates paid to general operatives and the rates paid to apprentices. It has always been the position in the printing industry that apprentices were paid on a time served basis and general operatives paid on an age related basis.
2. There is a clear difference between general operatives who do various functions from packing to assisting on machines, driving fork lifts or performing cleaning duties, and women worker members who do specific functions which have always been regarded as requiring them to serve their time in order to enable them become qualified journeywomen.
3. It is untenable to expect general operatives who commence employment with a Company at 30 or 33 years of age to serve a three year learnership when they are capable of performing the various jobs as a result of experience gained in other industries.
4. It appears from correspondence that the Unions accepted the position as set out by the IPF in 1991. It is the Unions' view that a genuine misunderstanding took place. In the circumstances the Court is requested to recommend that general operatives commencing employment at age 18 or over receive the full rate without the requirement of working through a learnership process.
IPF'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The IPF in good faith entered into an agreement with the DPGU to shorten the learnership period in respect of certain categories of learners including transport men. The IPF has honoured this agreement and has paid the appropriate rate upon completion of the learnership period to the persons concerned. SIPTU 16 by itself and under the umbrella of the DPGU has sought to discard this agreement since 1993 onwards.
2. Notwithstanding the merits of the claim or otherwise the IPF cannot be seen to treat one group of learners more favourably than another. More especially since one of the categories of learners is comprised predominantly of women. the consequences of so doing would render it liable to potential equality claims. SIPTU 16 appear to be indifferent to this argument and they are insistent that the IPF amend the registered agreement to allow its members to receive transport man's rate of pay at eighteen years of age and upwards, irrespective of the learnership period.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the information presented to the Court that in practice nearly all companies are paying rates other than those outlined in the Agreement. Indeed this case appears to have arisen as a result of one company applying the agreement rigidly as written.
However, the issue before the Court is a disagreement on interpretation of the section on payment and "learning periods".
While it may be that in practically all cases the agreement is not applied rigidly, the Court is satisfied that the agreement as it stands does allow for a three year learning period during which the percentage as outlined in the Company submission appendix 3 can be applied.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th February, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.