Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90119 Case Number: LCR12837 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for loss of shift and the implementation by the Authority of Clauses 9.2, 9.5 and 9.6 of the "Broadcasting in the 1980's" Agreement.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
To deal in the first instance with the alleged breach of elements
of Clause 9 of the "Broadcasting in the 80's" Agreement by the
Management, the Court would on the evidence provided hesitate to
accept the claim made by the Unions particularly having regard to
the fact that the Agreement is in existence for some seven years
apparently without the matter of sub contractors giving rise to
any serious difficulty to either party. However, in the light of
the proposed changes which the Authority wishes to make in the
Mechanical Maintenance Department, the Court recommends that
management take particular care to ensure that the terms of the
Clause are fully adhered to. On the claim for losses deriving
from the change to day work the Court takes the view that having
regard to the particular service which R.T.E. provides and the
conditions of work which necessarily arise from the provision of
such a service, direct comparisons with other non-related
organisations are of limited relevance. The Court therefore
recommends that the Authority's offer of compensation be accepted
by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90119 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12837
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for loss of shift and the
implementation by the Authority of Clauses 9.2, 9.5 and 9.6 of the
"Broadcasting in the 1980's" Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as instrument technicians
in the Mechanical Services Department and have been on shift work
for many years. In 1989 the Authority advised the Unions that it
wished to eliminate shift working within the mechanical services
area as part of a rationalisation programme under the terms of its
Agreement with the Unions "Broadcasting in the 1980's". The
Authority's proposals would also reduce the number of staff by up
to 40%. It claims that this reduction in staff in the areas
concerned will come from natural wastage, redeployment and
possible voluntary early retirements. The Authority has made an
offer of a once-off payment of 14 months roster duty to assist in
the transition from a shift to a non-shift situation. It claims
that this is the norm in the Company and has been agreed and
accepted by other unions in R.T.E. The Unions have rejected this
offer and are claiming that the shift rates should be retained by
the workers concerned on a personal to holder basis, a precedent
which has already been established in the E.S.B. (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The Unions are also claiming that R.T.E. is in breach of
Clauses 9.2, 9.5 and 9.6 of the "Broadcasting in the 1980's"
Agreement which deal with the monitoring of sub-contract work and
the undertaking that subcontracting will not be undertaken with
the intention of reducing present manning levels. The Authority
denies that it is in breach of any sections of Clause 9 and claims
that the Agreement has been operating successfully for many years
without complaint from the Unions. The dispute could not be
resolved in local negotiations and was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 4th February,
1990. As no agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on the 5th March, 1990, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held on the 19th April,
1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Authority advised the Unions of its intention to
eliminate shift working in the mechanical services section a
series of local meetings took place in an attempt to resolve
the problems which would arise as a result of the Authority's
action. It was agreed that any changes introduced by R.T.E.
would be within the terms of existing agreements.
Subsequently at a meeting in September, 1989 the Unions were
advised that it was the Authority's intention to eliminate
shift working and reduce staff numbers by 40%. When
questioned on the issue of how Management intended to cover
exigencies which would arise at night time and weekends,
Management stated that some sort of arrangement would need to
be worked out between the parties. The Authority also
indicated its intention to eliminate the manufacturing
capacity of the mechanical services section by selling off
machinery, and using outside contractors to a much greater
extent to supply the manufacturing needs of the organisation.
The Authority's proposals to introduce day-work to replace the
present shift patterns is unacceptable to the Unions on the
basis that the proposed changes could result in a loss of
earnings and promotional outlets to the workers concerned.
2. The amount of compensation offered to the workers
concerned is totally inadequate when the amount of the loss of
earnings is taken into account, i.e. #2,768.00 per annum, loss
of annual leave 12 days, and loss of promotional outlets. The
present grading structure within the section was based on
shift working. While accepting the need for change the Unions
cannot accept such change where financial loss is experienced
by the workers, particularly in the present circumstances
where R.T.E. has made considerable profits over the past five
years. While the organisation has been going through a period
of change in various departments up to now no group or
individual has had to accept any cut in take home pay. It is
important to note that irrespective of grade the same shift
premium applies, consequently the lower the grade one is in
the higher percentage loss accrues when shift premium is
removed (details of the grades concerned and the total loss
were supplied to the Court). The 8 workers concerned have
accumulated 150 years' service together on various shift
patterns. It is natural that they would base their financial
commitments on their total take home pay (basic and shift) and
would order their financial affairs accordingly. The total
loss of the shift premium is causing severe financial hardship
to the workers concerned and their families. At no time were
the Unions allowed to negotiate any acceptable settlement
either at local, official or conciliation meetings. At all
discussions, Management took the view that managerial
prerogative was sacrosanct. They had made a decision that
shift working was to go in mechanical services and that their
position was not negotiable.
3. Because of the loss of pay and possible loss of conditions
the Unions are claiming that the Authority assimilate the
shift premium into the basic rate, on a personal to holder
basis of the workers concerned. The Unions would refer to the
community of semi-State organisations and in this context the
recent settlement by the E.S.B., in relation to a similar
situation, sets a precedent for R.T.E. In this case the
E.S.B. and the unions concerned reached agreement whereby the
shift allowances were assimilated into the basic pay of those
workers concerned on a personal to holder basis. Given the
Authority's present and past financial position the Unions can
see no good reason why the workers concerned should be
penalised by a considerable loss of earnings and see no reason
why R.T.E. could not come to a similar arrangement to that
reached by the E.S.B. and its employees. The Authority by its
unilateral decision to eliminate shift working in the
mechanical services area has taken no cognisance of the human
and personal dimension of hardship caused by its actions.
4. The Authority's intention is to eliminate the
manufacturing capacity of the workshop coupled with a
reduction in staff over a 2-3 year period. The Union has
drawn the Authority's attention to Clauses 9.2, 9.5 and 9.6 of
the "Broadcasting in the Eighties" Agreement and requested the
implementation of these clauses as follows:-
(a) Immediate introduction of the mechanism to monitor
sub-contracting as per 9.2.
(b) Immediate cessation of all sub-contracting to
non-union sub-contracting as per 9.5.
(c) The recognition by R.T.E. that Clause 9.6 prohibits
the Authority from using sub-contractors as a means
of reducing staff levels in mechanical services.
The Authority has stated that "it has no difficulty
in adhering to current agreements." It has however
consistently refused to adhere to Clauses 9.2, 9.5
and 9.6. The Union is requesting the Authority to
now implement these clauses and recognise its
obligations under these claims which it has
consistently refused to do up to the present time.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Authority's proposal to introduce revised rosters in
the Mechanical Maintenance Section was done in the context of
the Authority's corporate policy that a strategy for surviving
in an increasingly competitive broadcasting environment be
implemented without delay. This strategy inter alia dictated
that operating practices which were deemed to be inefficient
should be changed. The Authority held numerous meetings with
the Unions in 1989 and in order to present a detailed plan to
the workers concerned the Authority agreed to defer the
introduction of the revised rosters. While R.T.E. maintains
its right to change rosters without compensation accruing to
workers (under existing agreements) nevertheless it made the
offer of compensation to assist staff to transfer from shift
to non-shift working. It should be noted that the workers in
the Mechanical Maintenance Section did in fact come off
"shift" on the 5th February, 1990 accepting as they did
R.T.E.'s right in principle to introduce rosters. The
Authority rejects the Unions' claim that a permanent on-going
compensatory package should be put in place for the workers
affected by the change. The Authority's stance, endorsed by
the Court in previous recommendations is that no such package
is required given the nature of R.T.E.'s agreements and pay
policies covering the workers concerned.
2. All staff in the Authority, including the workers
concerned, have a seven day liability and a liability for
rostered duties covering the period 0700 to 2400 hours
(details supplied to the Court). The compensation for this
type of rostering is that, among other considerations, there
is a composite salary structure. This includes an in-built
amount equal to 10% in salary scales to compensate for having
to work rosters over seven days of the week. This composite
salary arrangement has been endorsed by the Court on many
occasions (L.C.R.'s 3277, 5876 and 6123 refer). Therefore,
historically it has been accepted that through the combination
of a composite salary and the flexibility agreed with the
unions under 13 point roster, R.T.E. is entitled to alter
rosters without compensation, to suit the needs of
broadcasting.
3. Notwithstanding this fact the Authority has nevertheless
offered the Unions the equivalent of 14 months roster duty
payments (once-off) to assist the workers in the transition
from a shift to non-shift operation. This is a generous offer
and represents a once-off payment of up to #2,000. It should
be noted at this stage that this once-off lump sum payment
based on 14 months roster duty earnings is the norm in R.T.E.
and, in similar circumstances, has been agreed and accepted by
other trade unions in R.T.E. It should also be noted that
under the terms of "The Development of the Broadcasting
Services in the 1980's" Agreement the Unions reaffirmed in
paragraph 4, their commitment to the methods of rostering in
R.T.E. (i.e. 13 point roster). Having received a 22.5%
cumulative increase in salary under this agreement it is clear
that the Authority could very easily have resisted making any
offer of compensation to the staff concerned and simply
compelled them to honour this agreement without further
compensation.
4. The Authority totally rejects the Unions' claim regarding
the non implementation of Clause 9 of the "Broadcasting in the
Eighties Agreement" which deals with sub-contracting. With
regard to:-
Clause 9.2. The Authority admits that yearly meetings to
monitor sub-contract work have not taken place as
provided for under this Section. However the Authority
is not aware of a request from the Unions for such a
meeting or that they had any complaints with regard to
the non implementation of this clause.
Clause 9.5. The Authority is not aware of any
sub-contracting work being allocated to non-union firms.
The amount of sub-contracting work which is allocated to
outside firms is very small. The Unions have not
previously complained about the alleged breaching of this
clause.
Clause 9.6. The Authority has already outlined its
reasons for introducing revised rosters in Mechanical
Maintenance. The reasons included the increased
reliability of technology which led to a reduced
requirement for maintenance support. This in turn
dictated that, in preference to shift working, day
working would provide the most efficient and effective
maintenance presence. It is these considerations (rather
than an unfounded assertion by the Unions of a breach of
Clause 9.6) which give rise to the Authority's position
that, over a period of time, staff numbers in the area
will have to reduce. These will be dealt with by way of
transfer to an area of choice, redeployment, natural
wastage or voluntary early retirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
To deal in the first instance with the alleged breach of elements
of Clause 9 of the "Broadcasting in the 80's" Agreement by the
Management, the Court would on the evidence provided hesitate to
accept the claim made by the Unions particularly having regard to
the fact that the Agreement is in existence for some seven years
apparently without the matter of sub contractors giving rise to
any serious difficulty to either party. However, in the light of
the proposed changes which the Authority wishes to make in the
Mechanical Maintenance Department, the Court recommends that
management take particular care to ensure that the terms of the
Clause are fully adhered to. On the claim for losses deriving
from the change to day work the Court takes the view that having
regard to the particular service which R.T.E. provides and the
conditions of work which necessarily arise from the provision of
such a service, direct comparisons with other non-related
organisations are of limited relevance. The Court therefore
recommends that the Authority's offer of compensation be accepted
by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
10th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O.'D/J.C.