Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87771 Case Number: LCR11608 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RTE - and - ITGWU;ETU |
Dispute concerning the lighting of T.V. studio 2.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has visited the studio to examine the changes in question. The
Court in light of the commitments by all parties contained in the
Broadcasting in the 80's agreement recommends that the Union accept
the changes required by the Authority.
The Court further recommends that in view of the Authority's
obligations under the terms of the same agreement, the Authority
should give full weight to the skill and experience in the area
already gained by the electricians in question in the event of
applications from them for transfer to the lighting area.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87771 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11608
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1976
PARTIES RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the lighting of T.V. studio 2.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Authority's proposal to transfer
certain operations, concerning the lighting of T.V. studio 2
currently carried out separately by technical operators
(electrical) and lighting operators, to the lighting operators.
The lighting in studio 2 is automatically operated. The Union
objected to the proposal as it considered it would result in
electricians' work being transferred to the lighting operators. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 1st
September, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 14th
September, 1987 but no agreement was reached and on 12th October,
1987 the cases was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 6th November,
1987. On 11th December, 1987 the Court visited Radio Telefis
Eireann to inspect the operation at issue.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work in question is appropriate to electricians,
because of the complex circuitry and the high consumption of
electrical power. This work should not be transferred to
lighting operators.
2. The Union has been more than conciliatory in the proposals
it has put forward. However, the Authority would not have
tri-partite talks on this issue, this was contrary to
agreement.
3. Even though the lighting in studio 2 is automated there is
a greater electrical presence there than if a manual system
was used. The Authority wants to go to a situation where
there will be no electrician in the studio.
4. When looking at the electrician's job it is necessary to
look at the overall job and not merely to examine part of the
job, which is what the Authority is doing.
5. The arguments put forward by the Authority are simply
economic and financial. There can be no economic argument
which would justify a reduction in safety standards. Having a
studio in full production with "luminaries" and "practicals"
without the presence of a qualified electrician is inherently
dangerous and contrary to normal practice.
7. At no time was it accepted that "Broadcasting in the 80's
tied the Union to any transfer of work in studio 2. In that
document under the heading "Changes in Work Practices" is
clearly stated that changes will take place within electrical
services.
8. The nearest comparable system to that which is installed
in Studio 2 is in Germany and it is operated by electricians.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the terms of the Development of "Broadcasting
Services in the 1980" agreements the Authority is entitled to
proceed immediately with the implementation of its proposals
in relation to automation of lighting in studio 2 (details
supplied to the Court)
2. The proposals are in accordance with agreements reached
with the Unions. It is unacceptable that the Authority's
attempts to implement them have been frustrated at every turn.
3. The Authority has proceeded on this matter since 1985 in a
constructive and conciliatory manner. In the context of the
increasingly competitive broadcasting environment the
Authority has to operate in, the changes being proposed are
logical efficient, and cost effective.
4. The Authority cannot justify the continuation of outmoded
and inefficient work practices and its imperative that the
proposals are implemented without further delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has visited the studio to examine the changes in question. The
Court in light of the commitments by all parties contained in the
Broadcasting in the 80's agreement recommends that the Union accept
the changes required by the Authority.
The Court further recommends that in view of the Authority's
obligations under the terms of the same agreement, the Authority
should give full weight to the skill and experience in the area
already gained by the electricians in question in the event of
applications from them for transfer to the lighting area.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
24th December, 1987 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'M./J.C.