Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91310 Case Number: LCR13392 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Claim by the Union concerning staffing levels in the newsroom.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, with the co-operation and assistance of the parties
has heard detailed arguments on the appropriate levels of staffing
in the various sub-divisions of the newsroom.
Having considered the cases made, the Court has come to the
conclusion that it is not its task to establish specific manning
levels for any particular function but rather to suggest broad
guidelines within which the parties using their best professional
judgements should reach agreement.
Taking account of the information made available to it during the
hearings the Court is of the view that the major underlying
difficulty is the pressure exacted by the severe financial
constraints under which the station is operating. In such
circumstances it is inevitable that staff in time will suffer, in
some degree, the results of this pressure and it would be totally
unrealistic of the Court to recommend increased staffing levels
simply to ease such a situation.
However, in the detailed submissions made to it, it seemed to the
Court that some sections of the newsroom were affected more
severely than others, a fact acknowledged by management in their
offer to bring staffing up to a total of 116.
The Court is of the opinion that this number is probably the very
minimum with which the service can continue and as such does not
relieve the undoubted strain under which journalistic staff are
operating.
The Court therefore recommends that the Authority agree to
increase the newsroom staffing level to 121 and that management
and staff agree between themselves how best the additional staff
recommended be allocated in order to maintain broadcasting
standards and assist existing staff.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91310 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning staffing levels in the newsroom.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with R.T.E. over the staffing levels
in the newsroom. Currently there are 114 journalists working in
the newsroom. The Union contends that this is not enough staff to
meet output requirements. The Union believes that it will take 20
extra posts to achieve the basic staffing levels required to meet
both output requirements and agreements existing between the
parties. The Union has claimed that due to understaffing the
journalists are unable to take their mealbreaks or time-off-in
lieu (T.O.I.L.) of large amounts of overtime. R.T.E. acknowledged
that staffing levels were marginally below requirements and that
it was in the process of taking steps to rectify this. R.T.E.
accepted that there has been a net increase in output in that
additional T.V. bulletins did amount to further hours of
transmission but this allowed for better use of staff and
resources. It also meant that stories prepared for earlier
bulletins could be modified for later bulletins. R.T.E. contended
that a minimum staffing level of 116 is required in the newsroom.
As the parties could not reach agreement locally, the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 4th February, 1991.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 6th
May, 1991. Following the conciliation conference, the Union
balloted its members who voted overwhelmingly for industrial
action and 28 days notice was served on R.T.E. to expire on 24th
June, 1991. At a second conciliation conference held on 7th June,
1991, no further progress was made, however, the Union sought to
establish the current manning levels as 122 on the basis that an
R.T.E. Activity Review Unit Report (A.R.U.) from 1987, established
the number as 114 and there had been 8 new posts created
subsequently to cater for expansion in the news service. As no
agreement could be reached, the Labour Relations Commission in
accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990, referred the matter to the Labour Court on 18th June,
1991, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the matter on 28th June, and 10th July, 1991. Prior
to the Court's investigation the Union agreed to defer its
industrial action pending the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's immediate priority is to restore proper
staffing levels in the newsroom. Currently the journalists
are overworked and exploited by a management that knows they
will put their professional commitment to news coverage before
their entitlements as workers. They see this as a strike
issue, as they can no longer sustain their unreasonable
workload.
2. In 1987, the A.R.U. stipulated that 114 posts were
required to meet output levels. In 1988, the SIX T.V.
bulletin was introduced. This meant a significant increase in
news output and R.T.E. agreed to employ 3 extra staff to cope
with the increased workload. The Union believed more were
required. It soon became apparent that there were staffing
problems in TV reporters desk, the Foreign Unit and the TV
subs desk.
3. A year later, these difficulties were overshadowed by the
contract quota dispute, which concluded in the Labour Court.
At that point it was agreed that the new ONE T.V. bulletin
could be introduced with the provision that the Union would be
afforded the opportunity to review staffing levels for ONE TV
at a later date. That review never took place.
4. In addition to the 2 new bulletins, TV news has grown
considerably. Visual headlines at 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. were
introduced, the late night and SIX TV bulletins were extended,
a regular Oireachtas programme was introduced and new
correspondencies were created by quoshing former
correspondents posts and dividing up the load among the
already overworked reporters. Meanwhile radio output was also
increasing. The Union estimates that Radio One output is up
one third since 1987. One new post was created, programme
editor, to meet the increased output but this benefit was
undermined by leaving 2 vacancies, agreed under A.R.U.,
unfilled. Similarly 2FM bulletins were extended and actuality
clips were introduced. 2FM output has increased by
approximately 50%. As a result of the increases in output
staffing levels are seriously adrift from the "crewing to
workload" agreement and agreements on rosters and mealbreaks
are regularly flouted.
5. As a result of all these changes, R.T.E. introduced 8
posts to meet the demands of new output since 1987. This is a
total of 8 posts on top of the A.R.U. figure of 114 in 1987.
By R.T.E.'s own criteria therefore, there should be 122
journalists at present, however, currently there are only 114,
as R.T.E. has refused to fill the 8 vacant posts. Even with
the full compliment of staff in the newsroom, R.T.E. would
still be unable to provide staff with mealbreaks or T.O.I.L.
for the extra hours they have worked to provide cover for gaps
in the roster. They would be unable to draw up rosters that
would meet the terms of agreements and would remain in breach
of the crewing to workload principle. This is not acceptable
to the Union.
6. The Union does not accept R.T.E.'s contention that it is
valid to subtract bodies from the 122 base because some
programmes have been dropped and other posts rendered surplus
to requirements. The bottom line is that while there have
been some minor programming changes, there has been a huge
expansion in television production since the base laid down by
A.R.U. in 1987. R.T.E.'s own figures show that overall TV
production is up 39% since then.
7. A significant symptom of the staffing shortage in the
newsroom is the large amount of T.O.I.L. which has accrued to
the staff. By agreement, this T.O.I.L. is to be taken within
6 weeks by arrangement with the roster supervisor or otherwise
at the request of the journalist. The fact, however, is that
R.T.E. is simply not in a position to clear all the T.O.I.L.
owed without the entire news operation collapsing. There are
more than 1,500 days in T.O.I.L. owed to newsroom staff at the
moment. The only way this T.O.I.L. can be cleared is if
R.T.E. agrees to staff the newsroom at its proper level of 134
posts.
8. Journalists in some of the busiest areas in the newsroom
are not in a position to accrue much T.O.I.L. T.V. subs
simply miss meal breaks, in breach of agreement, and have to
carry out the work of 2 or 3 people. They can only accrue
T.O.I.L. when they are called in on days off to staff the
desk.
9. The Union has carried out its own review, similar to the
A.R.U. review, to determine the present minimum staffing needs
in the newsroom. As a result it has identified the need for
12 extra posts, on top of R.T.E.'s own figure of 122, which
added to extra productivity from certain shift changes, would
simply provide enough people to do the work that is there.
Without the filling of the 8 posts already sanctioned by
R.T.E. and the 12 extra posts, R.T.E. cannot keep to its
agreements and journalists cannot work in reasonable
conditions.
(The Union also provided the Court with a detailed breakdown
of staffing on a desk by desk basis).
R.T.E.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. R.T.E.'s proposals are adequate for the level of news
output and are fully in line with agreements between the
parties. Clause 2 of Section A of the agreement on "The
Development of the Broadcasting Services in the 1980's"
states:
"Workload will be the basis on which staff will be
assigned in future and it is accepted on foot of this
agreement that it alone will determine the number of
staff assigned to any desk. This will be arrived at
through the normal process of consultation."
This principle has been endorsed by the Court on a number of
occasions.
2. The 1987 A.R.U. report justified a total of 114
journalistic staff in the newsroom. That report stated that:
"It is implicit in the productivity agreements which have
been negotiated over the years that flexibility, crewing
to workload, and a common sense approach to staffing
problems will be the order of the day, it is only on such
a basis that the short-term problems which arise from
time to time can be resolved without giving rise to
excessive costs or making undue demands upon willing
individuals."
The basic provisions of this report have been applied. Since
the issue of this report, numbers have been increased in line
with the report to take account of changes in demand.
3. Over the past few years, R.T.E. has embarked on a
programme of staff reductions in order to secure the economic
viability of the organisation. R.T.E. has also had to have
due regard to the effect of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, which
reduced the revenue to the organisation in the financial year
1991, by #12m. All areas of the organisation have had to
increase output and reduce staffing. By way of exception,
staffing levels have been increased in the news division to
meet the requirements of crewing to workload. Furthermore, a
public competition is being held to recruit staff to maintain
those levels.
4. On 1st January, 1987, there were 108 journalists in the
newsroom. Currently there are 114 and R.T.E. has indicated
its intention to increase this to a minimum of 116. Within
R.T.E. that situation is unique to the newsroom. The Union
has secured very substantial increases in the numbers of
permanent and pensionable staff in R.T.E.
5. Everyone is well are of the employment climate for
journalists outside R.T.E. R.T.E.'s major broadcasting
competitors have gone through the process of making
journalists redundant. The same is true of broadcasting
bodies outside the state, e.g. I.T.N. R.T.E. on the other
hand has advertised for journalists.
6. Insofar as it is possible, R.T.E. has tried to meet the
Union's claims in a realistic and reasonable way and has
exhausted what flexibility remained. Concession of the claims
would put R.T.E. in an impossible position and would give rise
to a very serious situation throughout the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, with the co-operation and assistance of the parties
has heard detailed arguments on the appropriate levels of staffing
in the various sub-divisions of the newsroom.
Having considered the cases made, the Court has come to the
conclusion that it is not its task to establish specific manning
levels for any particular function but rather to suggest broad
guidelines within which the parties using their best professional
judgements should reach agreement.
Taking account of the information made available to it during the
hearings the Court is of the view that the major underlying
difficulty is the pressure exacted by the severe financial
constraints under which the station is operating. In such
circumstances it is inevitable that staff in time will suffer, in
some degree, the results of this pressure and it would be totally
unrealistic of the Court to recommend increased staffing levels
simply to ease such a situation.
However, in the detailed submissions made to it, it seemed to the
Court that some sections of the newsroom were affected more
severely than others, a fact acknowledged by management in their
offer to bring staffing up to a total of 116.
The Court is of the opinion that this number is probably the very
minimum with which the service can continue and as such does not
relieve the undoubted strain under which journalistic staff are
operating.
The Court therefore recommends that the Authority agree to
increase the newsroom staffing level to 121 and that management
and staff agree between themselves how best the additional staff
recommended be allocated in order to maintain broadcasting
standards and assist existing staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
29th August, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.