Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87457 Case Number: LCR11258 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RTE - and - ITGWU |
24 hour broadcasting in Radio 2.
Recommendation:
For technical reasons the Court's recommendation cannot be
displayed in this field. It is, however, held on the full
document.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87457 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11258
CC87413 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11258
Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
24 hour broadcasting in Radio 2.
Background:
2. Following a Labour Court hearing held in Dublin on 12 June,
1987, to investigate the above dispute, the Court issued the
following recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
For technical reasons the Court's recommendation cannot be
displayed in this field. It is, however, held on the full
document.
~
3. The Court, in arriving at its conclusions, wishes in the first
place to thank both parties for their assistance in helping the
Court to understand the nature of the issues involved.
To summarise, it appears that three separate but related matters
are to be considered.
(1) Technical presence during broadcast of certain programmes by
RTE2.
(2) Transmission during hours of 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. during which
the switchroom is unmanned.
(3) Operation of certain technical functions in Newscasting
studios.
In respect of (3) above the Court has already indicated to the
parties that it will hold a separate hearing on this issue.
On items (1) and (2), having heard the submissions made by the
parties and examined the operations involved at Montrose, the
Court is of the opinion that it should make clear straight away
its conclusion that both changes proposed are well within the
scope and spirit of the Agreement "Broadcasting in the 80s" and
what follows is largely influenced by that conclusion.
That agreement, whilst specific in certain aspects, clearly
envisaged changes beyond those which were dealt with in detail at
the time of drafting and provided for a procedure to deal with
such changes, which unfortunately was not followed in this
instance by the technicians concerned.
That having been said in respect of the matters at issue the Court
recommends as follows.
(1) On the question of a technical presence during the broadcast
of certain programmes by RTE2 the Court is of the firm
opinion that the assistance of a sound technician is clearly
superfluous, and in accordance with the "crewing to workload"
provisions of the 80s agreement the Unions case for
continuing technical input cannot be sustained.
Whilst supporting RTEs case in this regard the Court, apart
from the general reservation mentioned later, does recommend
that the Authority provide further information to technicians
as to the likely extent of their involvement in RTE2
broadcasting in the future, e.g. the percentage of planned
programme time in which their participation will remain
essential. They could by this means offer a measure of
reassurance to the technicians involved.
(2) On the question of switchroom manning, the Court, still
influenced by the terms of the Broadcasting in the 80s
Agreement, is of the opinion that the Authority has failed to
convince the staff concerned of the operational feasibility
of the proposed arrangement for an unmanned switchroom. In
this regard the Court endorses a previous Recommendation
which clearly laid responsibility for the quality and
continuity of transmission on the Management. If a failure
in either respect by reason of the absence of technicians
during the hours concerned is a risk, it is a risk which
Management are clearly willing to take and under the terms of
the 80s Agreement the change requested is one they are
entitled to demand.
The Court however acknowledges the interest of those concerned in
the maintenance of a high quality reliable transmission and in
this matter recommends:
(1) The introduction for a trial period of 3 months of switchroom
operation manned by a senior technician.
(2) The monitoring by staff and Management of activity in the
switchroom during the hours of 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. during that
period.
(3) A final recommendation by the Court backed by the findings of
such monitoring during the trial period.
(4) To avoid difficulties which might arise for both parties as a
result of the introduction of the trial period, the payment
for the work done during the three months would be a matter
for decision by the Court.
The Court, to assist the parties in future discussions, feels that
it should mention that in it's opinion an underlying reason that
gave rise to the present difficulties is the Authority's declared
policy on manpower reduction. In a department in which RTE have
stated that they require a reduction in staff of approximately
100, the workers involved are naturally concerned about the future
when being asked to relinquish certain elements of their jobs.
The Court, of course, is strongly of the opinion that in areas in
which work is subject to rapid technological change, efforts to
hold on to technologically deskilled elements of work are
essentially short term and unsustainable. In these circumstances
the Court is of the view that in the context of its declared
manpower policy the Authority could do more to retain the
confidence of the staff concerned by explaining it's plans for the
future use and development of their unique skills and talents.
Finally the Court recommends that those immediately affected by
the terms of this recommendation commence negotiations with RTE on
the terms of compensation for losses incurred by them as a result
of the changes made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
__________________________
John O'Connell
Deputy Chairman
18th June, 1987
P.F./J.C.