Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90198 Case Number: LCR12898 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary action (loss of increment) taken by the Company against two workers.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the written and oral submissions of the
parties, the Court is of the view that having regard to the
circumstances in which the programme was developed and broadcast,
responsibility for its outcome correctly rests with the staff
involved in this claim. Having taking into account the continuous
high standard required in programmes, the unquestioned record of
staff involved and the clearer guidelines now available the Court
considers that the case would be adequately met by a formal rebuke
to both claimants.
The Court so recommends.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90198 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12898
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary action (loss of increment)
taken by the Company against two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. An item broadcast on Farm Diary on 1st February, 1989,
concerning alleged irregularities in the export of Irish Meat to
the Middle East. Because of what was contained in the story
R.T.E. felt obliged, following legal advice, to broadcast a
detailed apology.
3. As a consequence both the producer and editor of agricultural
programmes appeared before disciplinary Hearings on 13th February,
1989. The Hearing Board issued its report on 16th February, 1989
which stated as follows:-
"The Hearing Board is not satisfied that either of the workers
concerned had sufficient proof of the validity of the item in
question before it was broadcast. The Board considers it of
particular significance that the story was not verified
directly from the originating source. Having taken all
circumstances into account and in particular the record and
past performance of both workers the Board has decided that
one weeks suspension without pay is appropriate in both
cases."
4. The workers appealed this decision in accordance with the
disciplinary procedures in operation in R.T.E. The appeal Board
comprised of Director of Programmes Radio and the Director of
Personnel and the appeal hearings took place on 10th April, 1989.
The Appeals Board issued its findings on 1st May, 1989. In the
case of the producer the Board took the view that the story
concerned was major both in origin and consequence and required a
responsible standard of scripting which it found lacking in this
case. The Board also took the view that the producer took
inadequate steps to authenticate the story before it was
broadcast. In addition the Board found that Clauses 2.13, (acts
which interfere with the proper performance of R.T.E.'s business),
2.1.8, (negligence), 2.1.9, (incompetence or unsatisfactory
performance) of the R.T.E. Disciplinary Procedures constituted the
appropriate and relevant clauses for disciplinary action and
concluded that the 3 clauses were applicable in varying degrees.
The Board lifted the week's suspension and imposed a reduction of
half an increment for a 12 month period instead.
5. In the case of the editor the Board took the view that the
story was major both in origin and consequence and required an
expected degree of editorial responsibility which it found lacking
in this case. The Board also took note of the editor's failure to
refer the item to any of his supervisors. The Board also found
that clauses 2.1.3, 2.1.8, and 2.1.9, applied in varying degrees
in this case. The Board lifted the one week's suspension and
instead imposed a reduction of one increment for a 12 month
period.
6. The Union wrote to R.T.E. on 12th May, 1989 indicating that in
the light of the Appeals Board's decisions it was referring the
matter to a Rights Commissioner. R.T.E. replied that as the
matter had been fully investigated and processed through the
disciplinary system the organisation could not see what would be
gained by having the matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly R.T.E. was not agreeable to such a hearing. The Union
then referred the issue to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 31st October, 1989.
No agreement was reached and R.T.E. were not amenable to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Union referred the issue to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946. The workers agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Normal procedures were followed in both verifying,
scripting and presenting the story (details supplied to the
Court). Both employees concerned acted in a responsible and
professional manner.
2. It was only after R.T.E. received a threat of legal action
that they decided to take disciplinary action against the
workers concerned. The company concerned was not identified
in the story. The workers had handled similar sensitive
stories over the years and never had any complaints.
3. Their professional reputations have been damaged since the
hearings. They have been left insecure unhappy and uncertain
of the way in which R.T.E. expects them to discharge their
respective responsibilities and duties. They are seeking a
public apology and financial compensation for the humiliation,
adverse publicity and damage to their reputations.
R.T.E.'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The way in which the workers dealt with the story left
them liable to disciplinary action. They were given every
opportunity to put their case at two separate hearings. The
full rigours of the Disciplinary Procedure were thoroughly
gone through before disciplinary action was implemented.
2. The Court should be aware that R.T.E. regards the matter
as coming within its Editorial responsibility under the
Broadcasting Acts and this is one of the reasons why it felt
it could not co-operate with a referral to a full hearing.
3. In all the circumstances, R.T.E. has dealt with this
matter in a fair and equitable manner and would thus ask that
the Court endorse the findings of the Appeals Board and reject
the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the written and oral submissions of the
parties, the Court is of the view that having regard to the
circumstances in which the programme was developed and broadcast,
responsibility for its outcome correctly rests with the staff
involved in this claim. Having taking into account the continuous
high standard required in programmes, the unquestioned record of
staff involved and the clearer guidelines now available the Court
considers that the case would be adequately met by a formal rebuke
to both claimants.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
6th June, 1990. Chairman
M.D./J.C.