Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91515 Case Number: LCR13492 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of the National Symphony and Concert Orchestras for the reimbursement of wages deducted during a lock-out.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
concerned. It seems clear, having regard to what both parties
agree is the improved industrial relations climate which has
come about in the meantime, that it is not in the interests of
either party to delve into the details of the stoppage and its
consequences at this late stage.
Nevertheless it is accepted that an issue of principle requires
to be settled. In this regard the Court as a general rule does
not favour the payment of income lost due to industrial action.
The Court therefore would not recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
However to acknowledge the changes which have taken place in
the meantime the Court recommends that the authority pay a sum
equivalent to half the salaries lost by the musicians to the
Education branch of SIPTU to be distributed by them in whatever
form they may decide.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91515 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13492
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of the National Symphony and
Concert Orchestras for the reimbursement of wages deducted
during a lock-out.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1990 the Authority while compiling its
prospectus for 1991 informed the Union of its intention to
combine both the National Symphony Orchestra (NSO) and the Court
Orchestra (CO) for 3-4 performances in the forthcoming year.
The first such performance was the Mahler No. 6 Symphony which
was scheduled for 1st February, 1991. The Union objected to the
Authority's proposals on the grounds that it had not been
consulted about nor had it agreed to the transferability of
Musicians between the two orchestras.
On the 30th January, 1991 the musicians of both orchestras
reported for work but refused to combine to rehearse Mahlers 6th
Symphony until the question of transferability was resolved.
The Authority claims that by refusing to work the musicians in
effect took themselves off the payroll. The musicians were
initially suspended for 3 days but on the 1st February, 1991 the
Union learned that the suspension was to be for an indefinite
period and that all musicians (even those not involved in the
proposed concert) were to be affected. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and was resolved on 13th
February, after various conciliation conferences. The musicians
resumed work on 15 February, 1991.
The Union maintains that for the period from 30th January to
15th February, 1991 the musicians were prevented from working.
Though they were initially suspended for 3 days the musicians
were available and willing to work after that period of time but
were in fact 'locked out' by the Authority. The Union contends
that the members are entitled to full reimbursement of wages
for the period of the 'lock out'. The Authority rejects the
claim on the grounds that the musicians' loss of earnings was
incurred as a result of their own actions.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
10th June, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on 6th
September, 1991 at which agreement was not reached. On 24th
September, 1991 the Labour Relations Commission referred the
dispute to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th November, 1991.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the proposed concert on 1st February there were
indications that the Authority intended to merge both
orchestras. The performance of Mahlers 6th Symphony by a
combined orchestra was perceived by members as the first
step in that direction. Previously when a larger than
normal orchestra has been required for a particular work
the Authority has always hired outside musicians to
augment the orchestra.
3. 2. The Authority's insistence that both orchestras combine
was a departure from years of custom and practice. The
Union's position is that transferability within
orchestras cannot occur without prior consultation and
agreement with the Union. Both orchestras are anxious to
retain their complete separate identities and musicians
in each orchestra wish to retain their rank.
Transferability raises the question of musicians playing
below rank which is in effect equivalent to demotion.
This is totally unacceptable.
3. 3. In an effect to avert industrial action the Union
proposed that the Mahler No. 6 Symphony be substituted by
a work to be performed solely by the NSO and that the
question of transferability be referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Changes of this nature in the
programme are not uncommon. The proposal was not
accepted by the Authority.
3. 4. Throughout the dispute the musicians were available at
all times for their normal work but were prevented from
doing so by the Authority who in effect locked them out.
The members were not involved in unofficial industrial
action nor were they on official strike.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was never the intention of the Authority to amalgamate
both orchestras into one nor to transfer musicians from
one orchestra to another on a random basis. The
Authority recognises the need for the existence of two
different orchestras and intended that the transfers take
place for 4-6 specific performances a year, all of which
would be notified well in advance.
4. 2. The need for combining the orchestras on occasions is a
financial one. Due to cutbacks in its annual budget it
was necessary for the Authority to look at cost cutting
factors. For works which require a larger than normal
orchestration the orchestras have been augumented by
outside musicians who have to be paid per performance.
This has been the case when the Mahler NO. 6 Symphony has
previously been performed by the NSO. It is financially
more logical to make use of salaried musicians which the
Authority has at its disposal in the other orchestra.
4. 3. The industrial action which the musicians took was in the
form of a refusal to work and to follow management
instructions. They in effect took themselves of the
payroll. The Authority cannot accept therefore that
there is any question of compensation for loss of
earnings suffered by the musicians. The loss was
incurred by the musicians own actions in refusing to
carry out legitimate instructions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
concerned. It seems clear, having regard to what both parties
agree is the improved industrial relations climate which has
come about in the meantime, that it is not in the interests of
either party to delve into the details of the stoppage and its
consequences at this late stage.
Nevertheless it is accepted that an issue of principle requires
to be settled. In this regard the Court as a general rule does
not favour the payment of income lost due to industrial action.
The Court therefore would not recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
However to acknowledge the changes which have taken place in
the meantime the Court recommends that the authority pay a sum
equivalent to half the salaries lost by the musicians to the
Education branch of SIPTU to be distributed by them in whatever
form they may decide.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
December, 1991
A.N.S./N.M. ---------------
Deputy Chairman