FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SUNDAY TRIBUNE - AND - DUBLIN PRINT GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Non payment of Sustaining Progress
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns employees of the Sunday Tribune who are members of the GPMU, IPU, SIPTU and the NUJ. Agreement was reached between the parties to postpone the last phase of the PPF (4%) from 1st April 2002 to 1st October 2002. The Unions are now seeking payment of Sustaining Progress.
The Company maintains that due to the highly competitive nature of the Sunday newspaper market and the current financial position of the company, additional costs would be unsustainable.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th June 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th September 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has a long history of the non-implementation of wage increases on due dates. The Unions have previously accepted the late payment of these increases where proposals for payment have been put forward but in this case the Company has not confirmed their intention to apply the increases.
2.There have been considerable increases in productivity, changes in work practises and a reduction in labour costs due to redundancies and non replacement of staff at the newspaper. As a result of these savings, the sucessful re-launch of the newspaper and an increase in circulation, the wage increases should be paid.
3. If the Company is unable to pay the incresases, it should claim inability to pay and have the matter dealt with as provided for in the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. The Company has experienced significant losses over the past three years. The Sunday newspaper market has become increasingly competitive in recent times and for the Company to secure long term viability, cost saving activities must be continued in all areas.
2. To maintain competitiveness, the Company has continued to drive sales through promotional activities and an increase in marketing and advertising. This has led to an increase in circulation but has not improved the financial position with regard to the implementation of wage increases.
3. The Company is not claiming inability to pay, it is requesting that the increases be deferred and the situation reviewed when the paper returns to profitabiltiy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is under Clause 1.10 (iii) of the Sustaining Progress Agreement, whereby the company is seeking deferral of payment of the terms of the Agreement. The company has not pleaded inability to pay the terms.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that the company should apply the terms of Sustaining Progress and the parties should meet to discuss and agree appropriate phasing arrangements. The Court recommends that this discussion process should commence without delay and should be completed within four weeks of the date of this recommendation.
In the event that the parties fail to resolve the situation the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
_11th October 2004______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.