FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS - AND - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Issues relating to the pay rates of Journalists at the lower level.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) concerning issues surrounding the pay of Journalists at the "lower level". In previous correspondence to the parties dated 9th June, 2004, the Court had indicated that "lower level" referred to the entry point plus the next two points on the scale. The parties were then encouraged to engage in discussions at local level on that basis.
The dispute could not be resolved and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th March, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd March, 2005. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers in question are being paid at a rate that is below the entry level pay for journalists employed at other National newspapers.
2. The Company have previously committed to link pay increases to Company profits. This has not been done, despite significant increases in profits.
3. The Company failed to table any proposals at Conciliation in terms of resolving this dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Rates of pay increases have been provided for 2003, 2004 and 2005 in an agreement reached on 18th December, 2003. It is inappropriate to re-negotiate terms prior to the expiry of that agreement.
2. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Company are willing to propose a settlement with regard to the first three points on the scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue of clarifying exactly what was the claim before the Court was the subject of a preliminary hearing and a letter of clarification from the Court to the parties, dated 9th June, 2004. The Union's claim addressed issues relating to the pay rates of journalists at the lower level. The Company submitted to the Court that the claim effectively sought to seek increases in pay for journalists at all levels, despite an agreement reached on 18th December 2003 which accepted general pay increases for journalists for the three years 2003, 2004, and 2005 of 3%, 4% and 4%. This agreement allowed for a referral of the issue of pay for lower level journalists to conciliation for genuine discussion.
In its letter to the parties, the Court held that the integrity of the December 2003 agreement must be upheld and indicated that a reasonable interpretation of "lower" level is, "entry point plus the next two points on the scales",the Court encouraged both parties to engage in active discussions on this basis. These discussions failed to resolve the issue and is, therefore, brought back to the Court for a binding decision.
The Company have responded to the claim, as clarified by the Court, and made an offer to increase the entry point plus the next two points on the scales. The Union indicated to the Court that this offer is not acceptable as it is very much at variance with their claim.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court notes that the 2003 agreement was one of many agreements reached with other Unions, at that time, covering the period up to the end of 2005. The integrity of those agreements needs to be upheld. The Court is conscious of the binding nature of this recommendation and of the fairly imminent process of re-negotiation of these agreements. Consequently, as there is a significant difference between the parties on the resolution of this dispute, the Court does not see any value in making a recommendation on the Company's offer at this time.
The Court will revisit these issues if requested by both parties at another time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd March 2005______________________
AH/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.