FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LANDMARK DIGITAL LIMITED - AND - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. 1) Pay, 2) Unsocial hours payment, 3) Provision of transport, 4) Collective Agreements.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to 4 issues: (1) Pay, (2) Unsocial hours payment, (3) Provision of transport and parking (4) Collective bargaining.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27 March 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14 June 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Eight of the 10 Union members who work for the online sector of the company are paid below the minimum level of their journalistic colleagues in the print editions, where the lowest rate is €28,000.
2. The company recently introduced new rosters, which involve more early starts and later finishes, as well as additional weekend work but has not compensated the union members in terms of unsocial hours payment.
3. There is no provision of a taxi service for those who don’t own a car and are rostered to start early shifts of finish late shifts, when public transport isn’t running. In addition there are no allocated parking spaces for these journalists who are among the first into the office and last to leave.
4. The company has refused to include the NUJ’s online members in collective agreements reached with the union.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The jobs of Digital Journalist with the company and News Reporters with a newspaper are distinctly different and the business models for digital and newspapers are fundamentally different.
2. The company is not in a position to accede to a cost-increasing claim for the foreseeable future.
3. Transport to and from work is the responsibility of each individual employee. However, the company has on occasion exercised its discretion to provide transport where exceptional individual circumstances applied.
4. The company is a very different business proposition to that of newspapers. In these circumstances the blanket application of company / union agreements is not appropriate. However, the company is happy to continue to engage with the union on specific issues as it has done in the course of current negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:
Pay
The Trade Union contends that the journalists concerned are effectively doing the same job as print journalists employed by a different company and so should be paid at least at the minimum rate of pay of print journalists. The company does not accept that the digital and print roles are the same and in addition contends that the nature of the business in digital media cannot support rates of pay higher than those currently paid.
The Court cannot, on the basis of contradictory submissions as regards the similarity between print and digital roles, make an evaluation which could be seen to be robust. Given that this contention is an underpinning factor in the submission of the Trade Union the Court recommends that the parties should jointly and objectively examine this aspect of the claim in order to achieve a consensus on what is a matter of fact. In the event that parties cannot achieve that consensus working directly together they should agree an appropriate expert to assist them. In the event that the parties cannot agree an appropriate expert the Court will, at the joint request of the parties, make a suitable nomination.
The Court further recommends that, having agreed on this aspect, the parties should re-visit the claim for a pay adjustment and in the event that resolution cannot be achieved, with the assistance of the WRC if necessary, the matter may be referred back to the Court for definitive recommendation.
Unsocial Hours Premium
This matter was presented to the Court on the basis that no effective engagement had taken place locally or at conciliation in an effort to explore and define the dispute. The Court was unable at its hearing to establish the parameters of the claim or indeed to fully discern the parties’ positions on the matter. The Court therefore recommends that this matter be taken up afresh at local level and processed if necessary through procedures in the normal way with the parties making every effort to, at a minimum, illuminate their positions and the basis for same.
Availability of taxi transport for persons working late
The Court understands that there is no policy of taxi provision as a normal facility for staff in the company. The Court also notes that on occasion and in response to particular needs and concerns such transport is made available at the discretion of management.
The Court recommends that current practice in this regard should continue and that the parties should maintain effective local dialogue so as to ensure that wherever particular circumstances or concerns arise that appropriate arrangements are put in place promptly.
Parking
The Court notes that the current ‘lottery’ arrangement is a multi-stakeholder arrangement. The Court, in the absence of a range of stakeholders, cannot set out a recommendation on this matter which would alter those existing arrangements.
The Court therefore recommends that any issue as regards parking should be addressed in local dialogue which encompasses the participation of all affected parties.
Collective bargaining
The Court notes the employer’s confirmation of a commitment to full collective bargaining in respect of the staff represented at the Court. The Court also notes that the Trade Union wishes to amalgamate this bargaining group with a wider bargaining group.
The Court takes the view that amendment to or development of existing collective bargaining arrangements are matters which should be discussed in a manner which takes account of the views of all relevant stakeholders. The Court, taking that view, concludes that it cannot make recommendations as regards re-structuring of collective bargaining arrangements in the absence of other parties to such arrangements which are in place and are affected by this issue.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
26 June, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.