Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87301 Case Number: LCR11251 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RTE - and - RTE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim on behalf of 2,000 workers for a pay increase under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made in this case
and, having regard to the general economic climate in which the
Authority is operating and competing, and its current financial
position, the Court recommends that its offer be amended to
provide for:
(a) an agreement of one year,
(b) an increase of 4% effective from 15th March, 1987.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim for a
lead in payment, and assuming of course that all parties will
continue to work together to sustain an efficient and competitive
service does not see the value of the general condition attached
to the Authority's offer and therefore recommends that it be
withdrawn.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87301 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11251
CC87252 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11251
Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
R.T.E. TRADE UNION GROUP
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 2,000 workers for a pay increase under the
26th wage round.
Background:
2. The 25th pay round expired for the workers here concerned on
14th March, 1987. The Unions on behalf of the workers served a
claim on the Authority for:
(a) A 10% increase for 12 months.
(b) A minimum increase for lower paid workers based on
Grade C (#11,000 per annum).
(c) A lead-in payment of #100 per person.
R.T.E. offered an agreement comprising.
(i) An 18 month agreement which would commence on
March 15, 1987.
(ii) A 6 month pay pause to run from that date.
(iii) A 3% increase in basic pay to all staff
effective from 15th September, 1987.
The offer was made on the clear understanding that there would be
continued co-operation with R.T.E. efforts to improve
competiveness. No agreement could be reached at local level, and
on 12th February, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 30th March, 1987 (earliest date suitable
to the parties). No agreement was reached and on 9th April, 1987,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 21st May, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) A 12 months agreement with no pay pause is the norm for
the 26th round. Recommendations from the Court and
settlements in general, have been for 12 to 15 months
without pay pauses. Pay pauses have not been a feature
in the vast majority of settlements. Out of a total of
406 settlements up to 1st January, 1987, only 17
included any element of a pay pause.
(ii) The workers position in relation to other semi-State
bodies was badly affected by the 25th round settlement.
In the case of R.T.E. the Labour Court recommended an
18 month agreement while numerous other semi-State
bodies had 15 month agreements (details supplied to the
Court). Cablelink, a subsidiary company of R.T.E,
settled on a twelve month agreement with no pay pause.
Since the 22nd pay round, pay pauses in R.T.E. have
reached an accumulated period of 13 months. Any
further pauses would be equivalent to a freeze for the
period of an entire agreement.
(iii) The claim for a minimum increase for lower paid workers
warrants serious consideration by the Court. In
previous claims the Trade Union Group have called
attention to a growing inequity caused by "percentage
only" pay increases. The Unions claim has not been
responded to positively, but the need still remains.
(iv) The selection of the C grade base as the lowest figure
on which a simple percentage increase would apply is
arbitrary, but reflects an awareness in R.T.E. that
salaries below this level are unsatisfactory. The
R.T.E. Benevolent Society for example use #11,690.00 as
a cut-off figure for certain grants which are available
to staff to assist in the education of their children
through the Secondary School system. It should be
noted that this organisation is completely independent
of any union.
(v) The reason for the claim for a #100 lead in payment is
in order to make up some of the ground lost in the 25th
wage round. As a matter of fact, the suggestion that
this claim should be made emanated from a member of
R.T.E.'s higher management (details with Labour Court).
(vi) R.T.E. had an after tax surplus of #3.5 million for the
year ended 1986. A profit of #0.8 million was made in
1985. This indicates a trend of increasing
profitability in R.T.E. The workers in R.T.E. have
contributed greatly to this trend, and their sheer hard
work entitles them to a share in the profits.
R.T.E.'s arguments:
4. (a) The R.T.E. position is that the claim being pursued is
completely without justification and cannot be
sustained. In fact, to date the R.T.E. Trade Union
Group has advanced no arguments to support its claim
and based on the Unions own approach that it is simply
seeking a cost of living increase, the offer made by
R.T.E. is fair and equitable.
(b) A 10% increase in salary for 2,000 staff represents a
payroll increase of #4,500,000 in a full year Simply
stated, R.T.E. cannot accept such an additional cost
particularly at a time when it is committed to a staff
reduction programme and is mid-way through a 5 year
corporate programme designed to bring order back into
the R.T.E. financial situation. As it is, a 3%
increase in basic pay to all staff will cost #1,350,000
in a full year and place considerable strain on
R.T.E.'s cash-flow situation. It is precisely because
of this together with current intense competition never
previously experienced that the offer was made
conditional on continued co-operation to improve
competitiveness, curtail costs, and secure long-term
employment.
(c) R.T.E. was the subject of a review by independent
consultants in September, 1985. Arising out of this,
R.T.E. took remedial action to improve organisational
and operational performance, both in terms of finance
and increasing home produced programmes. Against such
a background, concession of the Unions' claim would
negate the improvements made to date and would
seriously undermine employment/security in the process.
(d) While a surplus of #3,496,000 was achieved in 1985/86,
R.T.E. must stress that with debts to be serviced,
capital programmes to be maintained (#5 million in the
current financial year) and extra contributions (#1.5
million) to be made to the R.T.E. Pension Scheme, it
would be foolish and inaccurate to presume that
R.T.E.'s financial situation is capable of sustaining a
#4 million increase per annum in payroll costs. In
addition, revenue for licence fee collection is
currently below target and as already mentioned
advertising revenue is volatile and unpredictable.
(e) Quite apart from the need to bring order back into its
finances and achieve increased home-produced
programming, R.T.E. is now entering into one of the
most challenging and competitive eras in broadcasting.
Because of this and in conjunction with the 3% increase
in pay offered, R.T.E. must obtain from the R.T.E.
Trade Union Group acceptance that it will continue to
co-operate in all ways to improve organisation,
operational and financial performance. Anything less
than acceptance of this would be self-defeating and in
the long-term would be damaging to those staff the
Trade Union Group seeks to represent.
(f) As part of the claim the Unions are seeking a once-off
lump sum of #100 for each of its members. A
justification for conceding this does not exist and if
conceded would represent a further additional once-off
cost to R.T.E. of #200,000.
(g) The Unions have also claimed a floor increase for
certain levels of staff without in fact substantiating
any such increase. R.T.E. does not consider that this
is either warranted or necessary and the Court should
be aware that it would add a further #40,000 to the
overall cost of the claim.
(h) In general terms, R.T.E. must stress that what the
R.T.E. Trade Union Group is seeking is totally
unrealistic particularly in view of the changing
competitive environment in which R.T.E. has to operate.
While R.T.E. has emphasised consistently the need to
secure jobs for the future, the Trade Union Group
chooses to ignore this in favour of an attempt to make
short-term financial gains. In attempting to improve
pay and conditions for its members, it is the R.T.E.
view that through this claim, the Trade Union Group
will only jeopardise rather than enhance future
prospects for the staff currently employed in R.T.E.
(i) The claim before the Court is not justified and cannot
be substantiated either by reference to the internal
circumstances of the organisation or in the context of
the national economic situation. It would jeopardise
the role of R.T.E. in the area of public service
broadcasting with adverse consequences for the public
and the staff themselves. The offer which has been
made by R.T.E. is fair and reasonable and the
conditions accompanying it are necessary to ensure the
future viability and progress of the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made in this case
and, having regard to the general economic climate in which the
Authority is operating and competing, and its current financial
position, the Court recommends that its offer be amended to
provide for:
(a) an agreement of one year,
(b) an increase of 4% effective from 15th March, 1987.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim for a
lead in payment, and assuming of course that all parties will
continue to work together to sustain an efficient and competitive
service does not see the value of the general condition attached
to the Authority's offer and therefore recommends that it be
withdrawn.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
15th June, 1987.
P.F./J.C.