Largest newspaper group shuns Labour Court

A decision in April-May 2004 by Ireland’s largest newspaper group, Independent Newspapers, to ignore the entreaties of the public dispute-resolution agencies and push through a redundancy programme for 205 'back-office' staff, is widely regarded as a significant milestone in Irish industrial relations.

Independent Newspapers plc, a multinational newspaper group based in Ireland, has recently forced though a disputed workforce reduction programme at its head office in Dublin. In an unprecedented move, the company rejected two separate requests to have the dispute referred to the Labour Court. One of the requests came directly from the Court itself, the other from the social partners' 'trouble-shooting' body, the National Implementation Body (NIB) (IE0103233N). The NIB’s request came after the company had already cut 190 'back-office' jobs out of its final target of 205.

Until now, Independent Newspapers has always cooperated fully with the state’s dispute-resolution apparatus and has been regarded by the trade unions as an employer providing excellent pay and conditions. Its decision to drop, even if temporarily, its policy of adherence to voluntary redundancy and cooperation with all requests from the Labour Court, has provided a worrying backdrop for the current talks on a new 18-month pay agreement (IE0405202F) under Ireland's current national-level agreement, Sustaining Progress (SP) (IE0304201N).

The trade unions involved protested at the methods used by the company to secure full implementation of the redundancy plan, which cost EUR 23 million. The company claimed that it had exhausted all available industrial relations avenues and set a deadline for implementing its redundancy target of 21 May 2004. The severance packages offered ranged from EUR 40,000 for an employee with short service up to EUR 260,000 for an employee with 40 years' service.

In April 2004, the company failed to attract a target of 95 voluntary redundancies among clerical workers under terms concluded with the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) following a seven-month talks process. Ultimately, this deal came in the form of an April 2003 recommendation from the Labour Court. However, after attracting just 30 volunteers, the Independent Newspapers board reviewed the matter, and decided that a total of 205 redundancies was needed.

Effectively, the company argued that this increased job reduction target was part of the original April 2003 Labour Court agreement. SIPTU rejected this argument, insisting that, as the redundancy target had shifted from 95 to 205, a new set of negotiations was necessary. The company disagreed and set a firm deadline for 'volunteers' of 21 May 2004. If management did not get enough people to opt for the offer by that date, then the shortfall was to be made up by way of compulsory redundancy.

A subsequent invitation from the Labour Court was politely rejected by the company, as was a follow-up request by the NIB, the social partner body established to monitor Ireland’s centralised agreements. This decision by one of Ireland’s largest employers, which also happens to be a major 'opinion former', shocked the social partners. The daily Irish Independent is Ireland’s top selling newspaper.

Meanwhile, protests by all six trade unions represented at in Independent Newspapers made no difference. Industrial action was considered but journalists, members of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), voted narrowly against a strike. This ended any prospect of a wider strike as the unions had agreed that all of them would have to back industrial action for it to go ahead. At any rate, as the company secured its targeted level of redundancies by the 21 May deadline, a strike would have been ineffective.

Patricia King, the local regional secretary of SIPTU, claimed that by 'snubbing the Labour Court and the NIB, the management … has shown complete contempt for the state’s industrial relations machinery'. The Independent Newspapers chief executive, Vincent Crowley, replied that on 23 April 2004 management had formally told staff of the board decision to revisit its traditional policy of 'voluntarism'. This was because only 30 out of 'a required 205' redundancies had been achieved over a protracted nine-month period, he said.

According to Industrial Relations News (IRN), the independent weekly publication, the tactics adopted by the company showed what 'a large cheque book and a determined strategy dictated from the top can achieve, not just in the face of union opposition, but perhaps more strikingly, despite the advice of and wishes of the social partners'. The Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and the government were unable to draw up a face-saving solution. For commentators, this illustrated that the voluntarism which underpins industrial relations in Ireland remains intact, despite the growing influence of employment protection and industrial relations legislation.