Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88892 Case Number: LCR12363 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of two Team Secretaries, Cork for regrading to the grade of Broadcasting Assistant.
Recommendation:
6. The Court does not consider that any changes have occurred
that would warrant a change in Recommendation 9438 and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88892 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12363
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two Team Secretaries, Cork for regrading to
the grade of Broadcasting Assistant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The salary scale for Team Secretary, Cork currently ranges
from #8,805 - #12,190 p.a. and that for Broadcasting Assistant
from #9,078 - #12,649 p.a. In March, 1981 the Union sought the
regrading of the two workers concerned, who were then graded as
Secretarial Assistants. The Authority undertook an evaluation of
the posts and in February, 1983 advised the Union that on the
basis of this the two workers would be regraded Team Secretary,
Cork with consequent increase in salary. At a meeting held in
May, 1983 the Union claimed that the two workers should have been
regraded as Broadcasting Assistants. In 1984 the Labour Court
investigated the claim by the Union for the grading of the Team
Secretaries, Cork to Broadcasting Assistants and issued L.C.R. No.
9438 (11th January, 1985) as follows:
"The Court does not consider that sufficient evidence was
presented to it at the hearing to justify the Court in
recommending an up-grading of the claimants to a level other
than that established by the job evaluation exercise. The
Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim."
3. Following this there was a series of correspondence between
the parties on the matter and in October, 1987 the Union forwarded
a copy of a job evaluation undertaken by an officer of the Irish
Congress of Trade Unions (I.C.T.U.) which concluded that there was
no reason why the Team Secretary, Cork posts should not be
regraded to Broadcasting Assistant. The Authority by letter of
5th November, 1987 stated that there had been no change in the
jobs of the workers that would merit further examination and that
the Union document did not change that position. A local level
meeting subsequently took place and on 23rd June, 1988 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 6th October, 1988 at which
no progress was made. The Union requested a joint reference to
the Labour Court. However, management refused this on the basis
that the claim had already been the subject of L.C.R. No. 9438 and
a similar claim in Radio Na Gaeltachta had been rejected by the
Court (L.C.R. No. 10624). On 9th December, 1988 the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of
the Court. The Court investigated the matter on 21st February,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Court in L.C.R. No. 9438 stated that "it does not
consider that sufficient evidence was presented to it at the
hearing to justify the Court in recommending an up-grading of
the claimants to a level other than that established by the
job evaluation exercise." All of the arguments made by the
Union to the Court at that time are still relevant in this
case. However the Union now has additional evidence to
support the case.
2. The Union commissioned a job evaluation which was
undertaken by an officer of the I.C.T.U. and presented to the
Union in August, 1987. The job of Team Secretaries in Cork
was examined and measured using a standard clerical job
evaluation system, the report concluded that the Team
Secretaries do work which Broadcasting Assistants do and there
was no reason why they should not be regraded to Broadcasting
Assistants (details supplied to the Court). In addition,
since the job evaluation exercise was carried out broadcasting
hours from Cork Studios have almost doubled and currently
stand at 1,650 minutes (27.50 hours) per week. The cost of
conceding the claim is very small as the salary scale for Team
Secretaries (Cork) ranges from #8,805 - #12,190 compared to
#9,078 - #12,649 per annum for Broadcasting Assistants.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Authority's job evaluation scheme has been endorsed by
the Labour Court as being fair and equitable (L.C.R. No's
6066, 8174 refer). The evaluation which resulted in the
workers regrading to Team Secretary, Cork was carried out
strictly in accordance with this scheme. There has been no
change in the duties since that time which would merit any
change in the position. The claim for regrading to
Broadcasting Assistant has already been rejected by the Court
in L.C.R. No. 9438 and a similar claim for regrading of Runai
Meitheal in Raidio Na Gaeltachta to Broadcasting Assistant was
also rejected in L.C.R. 10624. This is clear evidence that
there is no basis for this claim. The document prepared for
the Union by I.C.T.U. is irrelevant. The Authority had no
involvement in it and does not regard the existence of this
document as new evidence or indeed of any consequence.
2. The duties of the Team Secretary, Cork do not meet the
criteria for Broadcasting Assistants specifically in such
areas as the breadth and range of programme related duties
associated with a Broadcasting Assistant employed in a
National Service. The Team Secretary grade is also suitable
to the type of local operation in Cork and any change from
this could not be justified particularly in the circumstances
where Cork Local Radio must make the most effective and
efficient use of its staff with the advent of local
competition. There is no validity in this claim and the Court
should uphold its previous recommendation on the matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court does not consider that any changes have occurred
that would warrant a change in Recommendation 9438 and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
28th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.