FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE KERRYMAN - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 2% pay increase under Partnership 2000 - Local Level Negotiations.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of the Independent Group, was established as a newspaper in 1904. It publishes The Kerryman and The Corkman and has a staff comprising 55 full-time and 10 part-time workers. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of clerical staff, for implementation of the 2% increase in basic pay under Clause 2(iii) of P2000 - Local Level Negotiations. The Union claims that Clause 2(iii), taken with the Minute of Understanding between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Business and Employer's Confederation concerning its application, allows for the full payment of the 2% increase without the requirement for any off-setting measures. The Company offered to apply the 2% increase in return for the utilisation of new technology by the clerical staff concerned. The Union indicated that it would discuss the introduction of new technology as part of an overall agreement which would include increased pension benefits, the 2% increase and an additional payment for the clerical staff and additional staff. The Company's position is that those claims could not be justified and were inconsistent with the provisions of the National Technology Agreement between the Employer's representatives IMPA and the GPMU/IPU. The dispute was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which the Company put forward a proposal as follows:
1. 2% increase;
2. Lump sum;
3. Review of pension scheme if further improvements were granted to other sections;
4. Staffing levels review post-implementation of new operation at front counter.
Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Tralee, on the 4th November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Minute of Understanding between the ICTU and IBEC only obliges employers to commit to cost off-setting measures and/or phasing where these are necessary for the firm or industry to meet the costs involved. Cost off-setting measures are clearly not necessary to allow this Company to pay 2% to the workers concerned in this dispute.
2. The National Technology Agreement, to which the Union is not a party, involves not just the payment of the 2% but also additional benefits. That Agreement does not oblige clerical or administrative staff to undertake data input but merely states that a request to so do would be subject of discussions and agreement at local level.
3. A precedent already exists within the Company whereby staff received an ongoing payment together with a lump sum in return for co-operation with data input.
4. The Union has no objections to entering into discussions in respect of the Company's request that clerical and administrative staff undertake data input but not on the basis that this is productivity or a cost off-setting measure required to enable the Company pay the 2% due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company is entitled to seek a contribution in return for the P2000 2%, as recognised by the parties to the Technology Agreement. Under the Minute of Understanding, employers are free to require cost off-setting reviews where these are necessary for the firm to meet the costs involved.
2. There is no comparison between what is being asked of the clerical staff by way of an "enabling" agreement and that agreed with the GPMU and the NUJ in 1990. The latter agreement resulted in 13 redundancies in addition to the staff concerned relinquishing many old work practices and accepting a new method of working resulting, in some cases, in loss of overtime and new working patterns.
3. What the Company has offered is favourable by comparison and the terms offered are generous and consistent with those applying in the industry at large. Accordingly, the Union should negotiate a comprehensive package, including the P2000 2%.
RECOMMENDATION:
In relation to the claim before the Court, the Court recommends that thetentative proposalsput forward by the Company to resolve this issue should be accepted by the Union, i.e.,
(a) 2% under P2000 should be paid;
(b) a lump sum, which the Court quantifies as £1,000 should be paid;
(c) a review of the pension scheme should take place if further improvements are granted to other sections;
(d) staffing levels to be reviewed after the implementation of the new proposed operations at the front counter.
This should be accepted by the Union in full and final settlement of its claim, arising from changes to the working methods of the employees concerned.
The Court notes the Company's intention as part of these new working methods to train fully all employees involved.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November, 1998______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.