Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8764 Case Number: LCR11136 Section / Act: S67 Parties: R.T.E - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of approximately 4 graphic assistants to have overtime rates and roster duty payments introduced for graphic assistants in the design department.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered carefully the overall intent of the
agreement of July, 1985, entitled - "The Development of
Broadcasting Services in the 1980's" and is satisfied that
concession of the claim is not justified in the context of that
agreement.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8764 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11136
CC861898 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11136
Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of approximately 4 graphic
assistants to have overtime rates and roster duty payments
introduced for graphic assistants in the design department.
Background:
2. The design department in R.T.E. functions within the
television programmes division. There were two main groups of
staff within the department, one known as auto-cue/cap-gen
operators and the other known as graphic assistants, who assisted
in the design and preparation of titles for programmes. The
former were related to technical operational grades and were paid
roster duty payments and overtime, the latter were related to
grades in the programmes area, such as producers, and had an
all-inclusive salary with no extra payments for rosters or
overtime. In 1985, because of technical developments, there was a
merging of the two areas and the cap-gen operators were assigned
to graphic duties to give them experience of the new technology.
The Union claimed that as the two groups are now working side by
side and doing the same work, the graphic assistants should be
paid roster allowances and overtime. At a meeting between the
parties on 12th November, 1986, the Authority pointed out to the
Union that the agreement on the "Development of the Broadcasting
Services in the 1980's," concluded in July, 1985, disposed of all
items in relation to the salary structure of all graphic design
grades, including graphic assistants. The Authority also pointed
out that graphic assistants have always been remunerated on the
basis of an all inclusive salary, which compensates fully for any
unsocial hours in their schedule. Local level talks failed to
resolve the issue and on 18th November, 1986, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 6th
January, 1987, so in accordance with agreed disputes procedure,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 28th January, 1987,
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 27th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Prior to the merging of the two areas, the graphic
assistants worked in a a manner which required their
attendance to carry out duties related to programmes.
Since they had no direct "On-Air" requirement they were
not scheduled to cover the hours now being scheduled.
(b) The graphic assistants now work a roster which applied
to the other group. This roster provides for payments
of shift allowances to staff when they are scheduled to
commence duty before a certain time each day, with a
further provision that if staff finish after a certain
time, further payments are made. There is also a
payment made when staff are schedule to attend on
week-ends, as part of their normal schedule. The Union
believe that these payments should be extended to
graphic assistants.
(c) It is a gross abuse of the graphic assistants to
schedule them for duty after midnight, after working a
12 hour day, without compensation, while the other
group have the right to refuse to work any excess
hours, which is the case in regard to duty after
midnight. If the other group choose to work the excess
hours they are paid 3.50 T.
(d) When one examines the level of earnings of the two
groups, it can be clearly seen that there is a serious
anomaly in the way that the two groups are treated.
This anomaly can be removed by extending to the graphic
assistants the entitlement which the roster being used
for half the staff oblige the Authority to pay.
Authority's arguments:
4. (i) Clause 4.9 of "The Development of Broadcasting Services
in the 1980's" agreement, states:
It is accepted that the salary structure fully
compensates Graphic Design grades for the working
pattern and includes matters such as extended
liability and unsocial hours which forms part of
the general life-style of the grade.
This clause is clear, specific and unambiguous in it's
terms and clearly demonstrates that the Union's claim
is totally without justification. The only possible
interpretation of this clause is that the salaries of
graphic assistants adequately compensates them for
unsocial and extended working hours. The Union
unreservedly and without equivocation, accepted the
full terms of the agreement and is now attempting to
undermine this freely entered into agreement.
(ii) The two groups of staff come from very different
traditions within the Authority, with cap-gen being
linked with the technical-operational area and graphics
firmly fixed in the programmes area. Whilst there is
some commonality in work content between the groups, it
does not follow that both grades should have similar
conditions and remuneration.
(iii) In the past, other grades from the programme structure
have pursued claims for overtime concessions and have
been unsuccessful in their attempts. This claim must
also be rejected, not only because it runs contrary to
agreements, but also because of the repercussive
effects which would result.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered carefully the overall intent of the
agreement of July, 1985, entitled - "The Development of
Broadcasting Services in the 1980's" and is satisfied that
concession of the claim is not justified in the context of that
agreement.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
24th April, 1987
B.O'N./J.C.