Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89846 Case Number: LCR12780 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of network technicians for the restoration of an additional four days' annual leave.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the
terms of the agreement in question it seems clear to the Court
that the benefit of the extended leave in question applies only to
staff on irregular or AP rosters as opposed to the other
concessions which apply generally. It also seems clear that
whatever the working arrangements at the time the agreement was
made, the present rosters do not fit the defined pattern of either
AP or irregular rosters. The Court therefore does not recommend
that the annual leave should in this case be restored. However
since no mechanism for revision seems to have been provided within
the agreement itself, the Court recommends that the Authority pay
each of the workers concerned a sum of four days' pay as notice in
this instance in respect of the change which the Authority brought
about.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89846 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12780
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of network technicians for the
restoration of an additional four days' annual leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. Network staff, who are mainly technicians, form part of the
engineering division of the Company. In 1981 a Transmitter
Reorganisation Agreement was negotiated between the Union and the
Company. Section A, clause (c), of this agreement provided for
the introduction of an additional four days annual leave as
follows:-
"An increase in annual leave for technical staff on irregular
or AP rosters, of a total of 4 days which will be implemented
as follows:
2 days in 1979
1 day in 1980
1 day in 1981
The granting of this additional leave is conditional on the
acceptance by the I.T.G.W.U. that a more orderly system of
taking annual leave will in future apply."
During the period 1984 - 1987 (approximately), the Company phased
out this additional leave throughout the country, on the basis
that the workers shifts had altered from working Irregular or AP
rosters to working normal day hours. The Union is claiming the
restoration of the annual leave on the basis that the rosters
currently being worked are in accordance with the terms of a memo
of 25th June, 1981 from the Staff Relations Department which sets
out the characteristics of AP and Irregular rosters. It also
claims that the 1981 Agreement provided for extra annual leave in
return for a more orderly system of leave taking and that there is
no provision for the withdrawal of this leave. This was rejected
by the Company whose position is that the extra annual leave only
applies to those actually working AP or Irregular rosters, which
the workers concerned are not on. No agreement could be reached
at a local level meeting and on 22nd September, 1989 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 6th November, 1989 at which no
progress was made and on 13th November, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 1st February, 1990. On 15th
February, 1989 the Company forwarded to the Court information in
relation to agreements with other sections of workers.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rosters which are now being worked are in line with
the terms of a 1981 memo from the Staff Relations Department
which outlines the characteristics of the two roster pattern
(details supplied to the Court). If one is to consider the
irregular pattern, among its characteristics is its
unpredictability. This is an open-ended position in that
there is no set time frame within which an unpredicted change
may occur. Therefore, no matter what period of days, months
or years one is on a particular shift, an unpredicted change
in that work pattern qualifies the pattern to fall within the
parameters covered by the general heading of irregular roster.
At times, workers are required to change their shift pattern,
usually at short notice, to allow them to assist at outside
broadcasts.
2. In addition to increased annual leave, the 1981
Transmitter Reorganisation Agreement also provided for an
increase in salary, a reduction in hours for those working on
shift, an increase in the minimum break between rostered
duties and changes in payment for rostered duties on weekends
and public holidays (details supplied to the Court). However,
with the exception of the annual leave, all of the other
improvements are still in place. In addition, the condition
stated in clause (c) for the granting of the increased annual
leave was that there would be a more orderly system of leave
taking, which has been complied with. Nowhere in the
agreement is there a suggestion that any or part of the
improvements would be withdrawn at a later stage. The
agreement was entered into by both parties on the basis that
all of the elements contained were the reasons for its
acceptability. Changes in the agreement without consultation
or agreement are a serious breach of its provisions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1981 Agreement (details supplied to the Court) clearly
provided that there would be a reduction in the level of shift
and rostered working in Network, with the automation of
systems and the demanning of transmitters. The workers
concerned received the benefits of this agreement including
personal salaries, overscales, salary increases, upgradings
and allowances. "Development of the Broadcasting Services in
the 1980's," further reaffirmed these two trends and the
workers received salary increases in excess of 22%. The
nature of broadcasting necessitates the attendance of workers
over seven days of the week. However, to meet these needs,
the Company has developed a compensation package for
technical/operational staff (details supplied to the Court).
The workers concerned are essentially day workers who work
every second Saturday and do not endure the rigours of the AP
or Irregular rosters.
2. The additional annual leave was introduced by the 1981
Agreement in order to compensate those working long days and
natural weekends, which are part of AP and Irregular rostering
(details supplied to the Court). Fundamental to these two
roster patterns is rostering on the basis of net hours, i.e.
78 net hours per fortnight, whereas the workers concerned are
scheduled on the basis of a gross 78 hour fortnight. They do
not now work AP or Irregular rosters and therefore do not
qualify for additional annual leave under the terms of the
1981 Agreement. The same clause applies in agreements with
other sections of workers. In other areas, workers who are on
a more onerous type of work pattern do not get the extra
annual leave and to claim that the workers concerned should is
both unjust and inequitable. Concession of this claim would
seriously undermine the Company's agreed position with all the
unions regarding compensation for those working AP or
Irregular rosters. The repercussive effects would totally
disrupt an agreed system which has been endorsed by the Labour
Court on previous occasions (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the
terms of the agreement in question it seems clear to the Court
that the benefit of the extended leave in question applies only to
staff on irregular or AP rosters as opposed to the other
concessions which apply generally. It also seems clear that
whatever the working arrangements at the time the agreement was
made, the present rosters do not fit the defined pattern of either
AP or irregular rosters. The Court therefore does not recommend
that the annual leave should in this case be restored. However
since no mechanism for revision seems to have been provided within
the agreement itself, the Court recommends that the Authority pay
each of the workers concerned a sum of four days' pay as notice in
this instance in respect of the change which the Authority brought
about.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
10th April, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.