Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88466 Case Number: LCR12083 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASON & SON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;IRISH PRINT UNION |
(a) Alleged breach of agreement (b) Creation of a differential without agreement. (c) Non-replacement of staff. (d) Claim for payment for flexibility.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
From these it seems clear that the Company acted hastily and
without proper consultation in respect of the transfer of several
clerks to staff grade jobs. These actions appear to have taken
place against a background of major changes in the distribution
section of the Company's business consequent on the loss of
distribution of various publications and a large number of
redundancies.
The Court is of the opinion that much of the difficulty would have
been avoided if proper consultation had taken place. However,
since it seems that a serious situation is still continuing, the
Court does not consider that the Unions' claims for replacement of
staff or enhanced payment for more flexible working are warranted
and recommends that the Company's offer of a once off payment be
accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88466 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12083
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASON & SON LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (a) Alleged breach of agreement
(b) Creation of a differential without agreement.
(c) Non-replacement of staff.
(d) Claim for payment for flexibility.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1988 the Company announced a major rationalisation
programme involving approximately forty redundancies. Two
separate clerical departments existed, news invoicing and news
correspondence. The Company proposed the compulsory redundancy of
the four correspondence clerks and that the news invoicing staff
would absorb their work. In addition the news invoicing office
would incorporate the addressograph department and become flexible
with the news showrooms. A new "general" office would thereby be
created. The Union sought an additional payment arising from this
transfer of work to the invoicing section and for flexibility.
Management, however, was not prepared to concede this claim other
than to offer a small once-off payment, as a goodwill gesture, for
flexibility. The matter was discussed at Labour Court
conciliation conferences held on 9th and 13th June, 1988 and it
was agreed to refer the matter of payment for additional work to
the Labour Court. The Union states that management agreed to
maintain the status quo in the meantime. Before any Court hearing
took place Management offered three clerical workers in the
invoicing department non-union "staff" positions with an increase
of approximately £20 per week which they accepted. The Union
states that these three workers are carrying out the work
previously done by the four correspondence clerks while management
states that they are only doing some of this work and that they
also have other duties. The other workers and the Union objected
strongly to the Company's action considering it to be a breach of
the agreement arrived at on 13th June, 1988, at conciliation. In
addition, the Union objected to the creation of a differential
without agreement and the non replacement of staff. These
matters, together with the question of payment for flexibility
were the subject of a further Labour Court conciliation conference
held on 14th July, 1988. No agreement being reached, the matters
were referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing
took place on 27th September, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Breach of Agreement
At the conciliation conference held on 13th June management
and the Unions agreed on the level and terms of redundancies
and on allocation of the correspondence clerks work within the
reorganised invoicing office. The dispute concerning payment
for co-operation with the changes was to be referred to a full
Court hearing and the status quo was to be maintained in the
interim. Management is in clear breach of this agreement by
the unilateral transfer of correspondence clerk work to the
three workers promoted to "staff" positions. The status quo
was not maintained and the Company acted completely outside
the terms of the redundancy/reorganisation programme of 10th
May which was the basis of the agreement. The Unions cannot
accept this breach of agreement by the Company.
2. Creation of a Differential without Agreement
The grades and scales for the various employees have always
been the result of negotiation and agreement between the
Unions and management. In this instance management created a
new differential without the agreement of the appropriate
Union. The Unions contend that management was wrong in
unilaterally changing the pay and conditions of workers and
the areas for which the Unions negotiate.
3. Non-replacement of Staff
Having already negotiated redundancies, the Company proceeded
to further reduce manning in the news invoicing office by
three without any agreement. These workers have been replaced
by temporary employees. Management's actions run contrary to
the rationalisation proposals as detailed to the Unions and to
the agreement reached at conciliation. If management had
really intended to retain the correspondence clerks and make
new invoicing clerks redundant, then they should have declared
so initially. In that case the workers' would have had the
opportunity of availing of the full terms and conditions
(salary plus bonus) of the correspondence clerks grade
(details supplied). The Unions are seeking the replacement of
the three news invoicing staff by full time permanent staff.
4. Flexibility Payment
At the conciliation conference on 13th June, the matter at
issue was payment for the absorption of the news
correspondence work. The Unions suggested the extension of
the existing 6-point scale to the same maximum point as the
correspondence clerk scale, a difference of approximately £15
(details supplied). Alternatively, payment of an allowance or
grade payment was suggested. Management contended that it
could not afford any such payment. Yet the three workers who
were chosen to do the correspondence work were given a £20
increase each. The Unions want the Company to adhere to the
original agreement and to concede an ongoing payment for
co-operation with the changes. The cost of this would be
significantly less than the savings generated by the
redundancy of one of the four correspondence clerks. The news
division is now in a much stronger position than previously
and the Company can afford to concede the Unions' claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company embarked on the rationalisation programme in
the context of substantial loss of business and greatly
reduced margins. The redundancies effected do not
automatically mean the wholesale news department is on the
road to recovery. The situation is still very precarious and
will remain so for the foreseeable future. It is not
envisaged that either the losses to date this year or the huge
redundancy costs will ever be recovered.
2. During the redundancy negotiations the matter of work
allocation for staff not being made redundant arose. The
Unions sought extra pay on a continuing basis for any extra
work undertaken or for accepting flexible work practices.
This was unacceptable to management because of the long term
cost involved and the repercussions it could have throughout
the rest of the Company. The Company has offered a once-off
payment as compensation for total flexibility. The Unions
refused to consider this proposal. After much discussion at
both local and conciliation level it was agreed to put the
matter forward for a full Court hearing. However, in the
interim to try and improve its customer services the Company
created 3 new salaried positions and offered these to 3 of the
remaining clerical staff. The duties and pay scales of the
other remaining staff remain unaltered.
3. The Company refutes the allegations made by the Unions in
relation to this matter. It does not accept that it is in
breach of any agreement. Management considers that it was
within its rights to create three new salaried positions and
to offer these to existing staff who accepted the positions.
In relation to the matter of non replacement of staff the
Company considers that it is too early to assess the staffing
requirements of the invoice office.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
From these it seems clear that the Company acted hastily and
without proper consultation in respect of the transfer of several
clerks to staff grade jobs. These actions appear to have taken
place against a background of major changes in the distribution
section of the Company's business consequent on the loss of
distribution of various publications and a large number of
redundancies.
The Court is of the opinion that much of the difficulty would have
been avoided if proper consultation had taken place. However,
since it seems that a serious situation is still continuing, the
Court does not consider that the Unions' claims for replacement of
staff or enhanced payment for more flexible working are warranted
and recommends that the Company's offer of a once off payment be
accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
3rd November, 1988 _________________
A.K./J.C.
Deputy Chairman.