Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9051 Case Number: LCR13170 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 36 journalists for compensation for loss of earnings arising from a dispute over the introduction of a new work schedule in Radio na Gaeltachta.
Recommendation:
5. Under the RTE/Union agreement, there is provision for matters
in dispute to be processed through an agreed disputes procedure
and this is subject to the provision that necessary work as
decided by R.T.E. will not be held up. This did not happen on
this occasion.
Accordingly the procedure which the Union should have adopted was
to undertake the new schedules under protest and process disputed
issues through the agreed procedures. In effect, this position
was accepted in the "return to work" formula which was
subsequently agreed.
In the circumstances, the Court does not find grounds to recommend
re-imbursement of monies lost by staff during their industrial
action.
The Court finds as follows in relation to cases raised by the
Union concerning three individual staff members,
Michael De Mordha: As this employee did not refuse to carry
out any management instruction, the Court
does not consider that it was proper to
deduct pay from him arising from the
general industrial action. It is of
course open to Management to deal with
his unauthorised absence from work, in
accordance with agreed procedures.
Diarmuid O'Suilleabhain: There was no evidence presented to the
Court that this employee took part in the
industrial action and therefore it was
not proper for Management to withdraw his
sick-leave privileges. The Court
recommends that he be re-imbursed.
Timlin O'Cearnaigh: The Court finds no reason for the
withdrawal of payment to this employee
and recommends re-imbursement.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9051 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13170
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 36 journalists for
compensation for loss of earnings arising from a dispute over the
introduction of a new work schedule in Radio na Gaeltachta.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of its policy of expanding its services on Radio na
Galetachta, Radio Telefis Eireann (R.T.E.) sought and obtained
approval for an extension in its hours of broadcasting. In all
the new schedule involved 10.5 additional hours of broadcasting
per week. R.T.E. proposed 27th November, 1989, as the
commencement date for the new schedule. The Union felt that the
imposition of the new schedule without full consultation was
unreasonable and not in accord with good industrial relations
practices. The Union was also apprehensive about increased
workloads, greater pressure and inadequate resources and
facilities. Despite local negotiations agreement on the
introduction of the new schedule could not be reached and the
Union indicated that whilst it would maintain normal working it
would not operate the new schedule. R.T.E. initiated the new
schedule on 27th November, 1989. The journalists were suspended
one by one as they reported for work and refused to operate the
new schedule. On 28th November, 1989, the dispute was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference held on 7th December, 1989, resulted in the acceptance
of the Industrial Relations Officer's formula for a "return to
work". Work resumed on 10th December, 1989. The formula provided
for a Labour Court investigation of a Union claim for payment for
the period of suspension. R.T.E. rejects the claim. On 11th
January, 1990, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
issue on 18th December, 1990, (earliest date suitable to the
parties), in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Programme schedules are normally changed twice a year -
Winter and Summer - and it was normal practice to negotiate
any consequential changes in workload or practices. Usually
there is full consultation and agreement. The journalists
were concerned about increased workloads, greater pressure and
inadequate resources and facilities. On this occasion there
were no negotiations.
2. The Union had no choice but to refuse to operate the new
schedule in order to defend themselves against the unfair
burdens being imposed without consultation or negotiation.
3. R.T.E.'s action was tantamount to a lock-out as the
journalists remained available for work under the prevailing
system. Since it was management who provoked the situation by
refusing to consult or negotiate in a reasonable way, the
journalists should not be financially penalised. It was
management who frustrated "the normal process of consultation"
as provided for in the Disputes Procedure of the agreement on
"The Development of the Broadcasting Services in the 1980's".
4. An example of managements poor handling of the situation
was their decision to suspend without pay two journalists,
Diarmuid O'Suilleabhain and Timlin O'Cearnaigh, who were on
sick leave at the time of the dispute. Another journalist,
Michael De Mordha, was suspended without pay despite the fact
that he did not refuse to operate the new schedule as he was
not approached by management at all.
R.T.E.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. R.T.E. believe that the Union's claim has no merit. The
journalists refused to work. The losses they incurred were
entirely as a result of their own actions which were in breach
of their contracts of employment and collective agreements.
Therefore, the question of the payment of compensation does
not arise.
2. During the course of discussions, R.T.E. offered to deal
with the issues in dispute in accordance with agreed
procedures. The Union refused to do so. R.T.E. tried to
engaged in consultation but the Union refused to take part in
the process and instructed its individual members not to enter
into discussions.
3. The industrial action deprived the public of services to
which they are entitled. Section 1.A. of the agreement on
"The Development of the Broadcasting Services in the 1980's"
states:-
"The N.U.J. commits itself with R.T.E. to make
every effort to maintain essential public
broadcasting services. Maintenance of such
services arises from R.T.E.'s statutory and
non-statutory obligations and the vital role it
plays as a source of communications and
information".
In taking their action the Union reneged on that commitment
and damaged the standing and credibility of the service and
organisation.
4. The Unions actions is in clear breach of the Disputes
Procedure of the Agreement on "The Development of the
Broadcasting Services in the 1980's" which states:
"Work will not be held up pending the resolution of
any differences which may arise from either the
application or interpretation of any part of this
agreement....."
5. The Union has referred to particular individuals who
were suspended without pay. In the case of Michael De Mordha
it is true to say that he was never actually asked to carry
out a management instruction to operate the new schedule.
This is because he never reported for work. R.T.E. contends
that Diarmuid O'Suillebhain was in a dispute situation prior
to being on sick leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Under the RTE/Union agreement, there is provision for matters
in dispute to be processed through an agreed disputes procedure
and this is subject to the provision that necessary work as
decided by R.T.E. will not be held up. This did not happen on
this occasion.
Accordingly the procedure which the Union should have adopted was
to undertake the new schedules under protest and process disputed
issues through the agreed procedures. In effect, this position
was accepted in the "return to work" formula which was
subsequently agreed.
In the circumstances, the Court does not find grounds to recommend
re-imbursement of monies lost by staff during their industrial
action.
The Court finds as follows in relation to cases raised by the
Union concerning three individual staff members,
Michael De Mordha: As this employee did not refuse to carry
out any management instruction, the Court
does not consider that it was proper to
deduct pay from him arising from the
general industrial action. It is of
course open to Management to deal with
his unauthorised absence from work, in
accordance with agreed procedures.
Diarmuid O'Suilleabhain: There was no evidence presented to the
Court that this employee took part in the
industrial action and therefore it was
not proper for Management to withdraw his
sick-leave privileges. The Court
recommends that he be re-imbursed.
Timlin O'Cearnaigh: The Court finds no reason for the
withdrawal of payment to this employee
and recommends re-imbursement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th January, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. _______________
Chairman