Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD966 Case Number: LCR15086 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (NUJ) |
Alleged breach of agreement.
Recommendation:
(b) Applies for income continuance under the Company's
income continuance plan,
or
(c) agrees to a voluntary severance arrangement with a
retained relationship which guaranteed a certain
minimum number of articles.
6. The proposals were rejected by the Union, which insisted
that the worker should be re-deployed under the
Company/Union agreements.
7. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 22nd November, 1995 and 27th
November, 1995. As no agreement was possible, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th
January, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 13th February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the Company/Union agreements
on new technology and the re-deployment of staff.
2. The Union does not accept the argument that the Company
would have problems in obtaining employers liability
insurance.
3. The worker does not want to take early retirement but
wishes to be re-deployed as per agreements.
4. The Company should seek the assistance of the National
Rehabilitation Board and other State agencies to improve
access and safety for the worker.
5. The Union is concerned that compulsory retirement could
set a precedent and have serious implications for its
members in the future.
6. Many journalists now work from home. This facility
should be afforded to the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has acted in good faith in this particular
case, based on medical opinion it has received.
2. The Company rejects the Union's claim that it has broken
any of the agreements between the parties.
3. The worker has continued to receive full pay since his
illness.
4. The Company indicated at the Labour Relations Commission
conferences that this dispute would not set a precedent
for the future.
5. The worker was offered another consultation with the
Company's medical adviser. This offer was rejected.
6. The Company can obtain written confirmation from its
medical adviser if required.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Before issuing the normal type of recommendation for resolving
this dispute, the Court considers it imperative that medical
evidence stating whether the claimant is fit to work in a suitable
adapted office be obtained. The Court accordingly requests that
the parties agree to seek this information. On receipt of same the
Court will further consider the dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD966 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15086
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (NUJ)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged breach of agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union is in dispute with the Company in relation to
an alleged breach of an agreement on new technology and
which concerns one of its members.
2. The worker had been employed as a Journalist by the
Company for over 20 years. In 1991 he suffered problems
with impaired vision and impaired manual co-ordination.
Following surgical treatment in 1992 he returned to work
until December, 1994 when he was re-admitted to hospital.
He was subsequently discharged from hospital after
treatment but has not returned to work. The worker has
declined to take a further medical examination.
3. He was employed as a senior sub-editor with the Company
which required him to use a Visual Display Unit (VDU) in
the course of his work. He is no longer able to use a
VDU for health reasons. He requested to be re-deployed
to other journalistic work which will not involve editing
and setting functions on the new technology.
4. The Company was agreeable initially to re-deployment.
However, following further consultation and verbal
clarification from the Company's medical adviser, it
decided against re-deployment on health and safety
grounds. The Company indicated that its employers'
liability insurance could be invalidated in respect of
the worker.
5. The Company put forward the following proposals:-
That the worker:
(a) agrees to a further medical examination and if given
the "all clear" could return to work,
or
(b) Applies for income continuance under the Company's
income continuance plan,
or
(c) agrees to a voluntary severance arrangement with a
retained relationship which guaranteed a certain
minimum number of articles.
6. The proposals were rejected by the Union, which insisted
that the worker should be re-deployed under the
Company/Union agreements.
7. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 22nd November, 1995 and 27th
November, 1995. As no agreement was possible, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th
January, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 13th February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the Company/Union agreements
on new technology and the re-deployment of staff.
2. The Union does not accept the argument that the Company
would have problems in obtaining employers liability
insurance.
3. The worker does not want to take early retirement but
wishes to be re-deployed as per agreements.
4. The Company should seek the assistance of the National
Rehabilitation Board and other State agencies to improve
access and safety for the worker.
5. The Union is concerned that compulsory retirement could
set a precedent and have serious implications for its
members in the future.
6. Many journalists now work from home. This facility
should be afforded to the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has acted in good faith in this particular
case, based on medical opinion it has received.
2. The Company rejects the Union's claim that it has broken
any of the agreements between the parties.
3. The worker has continued to receive full pay since his
illness.
4. The Company indicated at the Labour Relations Commission
conferences that this dispute would not set a precedent
for the future.
5. The worker was offered another consultation with the
Company's medical adviser. This offer was rejected.
6. The Company can obtain written confirmation from its
medical adviser if required.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Before issuing the normal type of recommendation for resolving
this dispute, the Court considers it imperative that medical
evidence stating whether the claimant is fit to work in a suitable
adapted office be obtained. The Court accordingly requests that
the parties agree to seek this information. On receipt of same the
Court will further consider the dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour court
Evelyn Owens
22nd February, 1996 ------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.