FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - AND - DUBLIN PRINT GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Additional titles.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company publishes the Sunday World, the Farmer's Journal, the Daily Express, the Star and the Mirror.
In February, 1999, a conciliation conference took place under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in relation to the clause (governing additional titles) in the 1989 Company/Union Agreement which sets out the titles to be printed by night-shift printers. Under the agreement, payment of two double hours overtime is made for new titles up to 100,000 runs and three double hours overtime for new titles over 100,000 runs, in addition to time actually worked. Following the conciliation conference the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a proposal in relation to the buy-out of the clause in dispute (details supplied) on the basis of agreement of both sides to recommend it for acceptance.
The proposal was rejected by the workers.
A further conciliation conference took place in June, 1999 at which the Company indicated that it wanted to transfer the northern print of the Sunday World to Belfast and print the Southern edition of the Sunday People at its premises in Terenure, but this would involve the payment of the extra allowance. The Union's position at conciliation was that it was seeking an increase of £50 per week in return for the buy-out of the paragraph in dispute. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st of July, 1999 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of August, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The night-shift employees are claiming that the present arrangement of two double hours overtime on new titles up to 100,000 runs and three double hours overtime for new titles over 100,000 continues to operate.
2. The Dublin Printing Group of Unions believes that the buy-out of these titles will only be achieved by an increase in the basic wages of the staff.
3. The benefit of retaining the bonus payment as outlined is a lucrative one. It is the Union's view that more new titles will be printed by the Company in the future. This view has been fuelled by the introduction of a day-shift in the machine room.
4. Night-shift workers have a different agreement to the day-shift in that the day-shift will be required to work on all titles. The night workers envisage a situation developing where titles being printed by the day-shift will run into the night-shift operation and this would attract the premium allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has recruited twenty new daytime staff. It has reached agreement with the Unions and the new staff will handle all new contracts introduced on days. The extent of the problem has reduced from a cost point of view but is still considered a serious matter.
2. As night-time printing is now fully occupied there are a limited set of circumstances where negotiation on new titles would be required with employees covered by the agreement or where the premium payments would apply because agreement was not reached. Premium payments would apply in the following circumstances:-
(a) Where difficulties on the Mirror which necessitated a
transfer of part of the run to the Tribune press.
(b) Where a swap of one title for another would be involved.
(c) The loss of a contract and the successful negotiation
of a replacement contract.
(d) Where production difficulties on new title printing on days
necessitated the print run to be completed by night-time
staff.
3. In the commercially competitive environment which now exists it is a waste of time entering contract negotiations if employees are going to seek additional premiums to be added to already high labour costs.
4. The Company is offering £1,500 in two equal amounts of £750 at a total cost of £88,500 for a spirit of co-operation.
5. Co-operation of employees is essential to the Company's ability to successfully conclude contract negotiations as they arise. It is also essential to the future of all employees in Terenure.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. This case centres on a clause in the 1989 Agreement, the effect of which causes a restriction when additional titles are required to be printed by the Company. The Company is finding it increasingly uncompetitive to take on extra work due to this clause.
The Court is of the view that, as the clause is potentially destructive to the viability of the Company and the employees, it is reasonable in the circumstances to review the clause as per the agreement. The Court recommends that the parties should enter into meaningful discussions with a view to revising this clause in accordance with the needs of the industry at this point in time. If agreement is not reached by the 26th of October, 1999, then the parties should revert back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th September, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.