Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91161 Case Number: LCR13280 Section / Act: S67 Parties: R.T.E. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the re-organisation of switching centre, maintenance and sound operators.
Recommendation:
7. 1. The Court wishes to re-iterate the statement contained in
L.C.R. No. 12261 that the underlying specific principle
provided for in the Agreement "The Development of
Broadcasting Services in the 1980's" is that set out in
Clause 3 i.e. "crewing to workload" and that this
principle was intended to continue to apply in the
absence of a replacement.
2. The Court has considered the detailed information
provided by the parties. It has also taken cognisance of
the extended negotiations which took place prior to a
referral to the Labour Court.
The Court is of the view that finality must be reached on these
negotiations and accordingly recommends as follows:-
(A) The Court agrees with R.T.E. that compensation based on the
existing agreed formula should be paid in the usual manner.
(B) The Court understands the very real concerns of the workers in
relation to re-deployment and career prospects. The Court
considers that R.T.E. should make further endeavours to allay
these fears and give the fullest information possible to the
workers concerned.
(C) The Union accept R.T.E.'s proposals for the Switching centre.
(D) As the Union have accepted in principle the proposals for the
maintenance area they should be implemented subject to further
local discussions as to training and accommodation.
(E) The Court is satisfied on the basis of the Union statement
which was not refuted that self editing had been specifically
excluded from Broadcasting in the '80s document. Accordingly
in these very specific circumstances the Court recommends that
the workers involved in that area be paid a lump sum of #1500
in addition to whatever normal compensation may be payable.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91161 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13280
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: R.T.E.
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-organisation of switching centre,
maintenance and sound operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1989, the Company proposed to redevelop and modernise
three studios normally used for Radio 1 programming. These
studios are designed to go directly to the Transmitter Network.
They are self operated i.e. operated by the programme presenter
with the aid of computerised technology and can be used as a
presentation studio when required. In order to effect such
developments and modernise other studios the Company maintained it
was necessary to develop the technology of the switching centre
with computer controlled switches. In addition the outer area
would be specifically designed to provide for self-operated
editing facilities which would mean that persons other than sound
operators could edit.
3. The proposed changes have been the subject of numerous
meetings and conciliation conferences over the past two years and
have resulted in two work stoppages. While there has been
agreement on some issues, there are still a number of fundamental
differences between the parties. The Company argues that it has a
right to institute the changes under a productivity agreement
concluded in the early 1980's "Broadcasting in the Eighties" for
which increases in pay were applied. The Union disagrees and
maintains that the changes sought goes beyond what was envisaged
under the agreement.
4. Following a conciliation conference held in February, 1991 the
parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 9th
April, 1991. The Court issued its recommendation by letter dated
13th May, 1991. The issues in dispute are the amalgamation of the
switching centre and maintenance personnel, change in roster which
would remove the technical supervisor presence for part of the
radio broadcasting day, and the introduction of self-editing for
certain categories of staff which would effect the work of sound
operators.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. A number of changes which would effect the work of sound
operators and the other grades are contained in two documents:
(1) Summary of Proposed Manpower Plans in Sound
Operations (October, 1990) and
(2) The Development of Facilities Radio (24th July,
1990) (details supplied to the Court).
Most of the proposals are based on the question of editing and
who does that editing. At present sound operators alone edit
material for broadcast purposes. The Company proposes that
staff other than sound operators, carry out some form of
editing. Editing is a highly skilled job and one for which
sound operators alone hold the required expertise (details
supplied to the Court). The excellence of current sound
editing, based as it is on the skill and experience of its
specialist staff, cannot otherwise be maintained.
2. There are no existing agreements which cover the proposals
on editing. Similar proposals were put forward in 1981 and
were rejected then. As a result they were specifically
excluded from the Agreement "Broadcasting in the Eighties."
This agreement has formed the main basis in determining the
work procedure since then.
3. The Union rejects the Company's assertion that they are
looking for simple editing to be done by staff other than
sound operators, that there is new technology which allows
this and that its proposals are common practice in other radio
stations. There is no such thing as "simple" or "difficult"
edits. There are "well" or "badly" done edits. The Company
does not have the technology, nor is it able to find any, that
is suitable for the type of editing it is talking about. When
it makes comparison with other organisations, the Company is
not comparing like with like.
4. The Company's proposals are not compatible with the high
standard of programme making required. They would have
adverse effects on the career prospects of the sound
operators. They would result in a reduction in staff numbers
and the inevitability of redeployment in a climate where no
suitable redeployment exists.
5. The Company's proposals for the switching centre will
radically alter the nature of the work carried out by the
staff based there. This will result in pressure being exerted
for a reduction of staff numbers in that area. The work of
the switching centre has already altered as a result of the
"Broadcasting in the Eighties" agreement (details supplied
to the Court). At present all programmes for transmission are
routed through the switching centre and the staff there are
responsible for the smooth transition from one programme to
another, routing of all programmes from within the radio
centre, from outside broadcasts and from regional studios. In
addition they are responsible for the balance and control
levels from the different sound sources.
6. The Company's proposals would, with the aid of new
technology, effectively pass most of these duties on to the
presenter (details supplied to the Court). These changes are
not covered by the agreement "Broadcasting in the Eighties."
That agreement limits significant change/technology to a
period of four years from March, 1983. The proposed changes
are not covered by any agreement.
7. The Company's proposals regarding audio maintenance staff
were only identified in January, 1991. It is proposed to
amalgamate the switching centre and audio maintenance. Both
these sections have different work locations, different
duties, and different grade structures. Further negotiations
are needed in order to set up a new technical support
department which would recognise the present grade structures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The question of technical cover is a matter for the
Company and this position is endorsed in Labour Court
recommendations L.C.R. 10090 and L.C.R. 11258.
2. While the changes sought will lead to staff reductions
over a period of time the Company has given a commitment that
there will be no compulsory redundancies. Staff have the
option of redeployment and in some cases, with training, they
will have a chance of enhancing their career structure. Where
workers earnings are affected the Company has agreed to pay
compensation in accordance with current agreements.
3. The document "The Development of Facilities Radio" was
drawn up by the Company following discussions in January and
February, 1990. It draws on the recommendations of the Radio
Working Party Report which was published following the setting
up of a working party by the Director of Programmes Radio.
All interested parties made written submissions to the Working
Party (details supplied to the Court). It has been amended to
reflect discussions which have taken place. The document
recognises the effect of developments of modern technology on
work practices and staffing levels in the Radio Centre. It is
in line with these developments that the Company proposed to
institute changes in the areas concerned in this dispute in
order to maintain and operate an efficient modern radio
service in a very difficult operating environment.
4. The reality of broadcasting in Ireland dictates that
R.T.E. Radio must change outdated practices and avail of
modern technology in order to produce programmes in the most
cost effective and efficient manner while still retaining the
desired quality and standards of excellence. It cannot
achieve this unless staff are prepared to accept what is set
out in the document in relation to the Switching Centre, Sound
Operations, Audio Maintenance and the new Technical Services
Centre.
5. The Broadcasting Act, 1990 has put immense financial
constraints on R.T.E. and has meant that developments leading
to reduction in payroll and other costs must be speedily
effected.
6. It is essential that the changes being proposed by the
Company are implemented. The proposals will help preserve
jobs and ensure a consequent future for staff within the
organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. 1. The Court wishes to re-iterate the statement contained in
L.C.R. No. 12261 that the underlying specific principle
provided for in the Agreement "The Development of
Broadcasting Services in the 1980's" is that set out in
Clause 3 i.e. "crewing to workload" and that this
principle was intended to continue to apply in the
absence of a replacement.
2. The Court has considered the detailed information
provided by the parties. It has also taken cognisance of
the extended negotiations which took place prior to a
referral to the Labour Court.
The Court is of the view that finality must be reached on these
negotiations and accordingly recommends as follows:-
(A) The Court agrees with R.T.E. that compensation based on the
existing agreed formula should be paid in the usual manner.
(B) The Court understands the very real concerns of the workers in
relation to re-deployment and career prospects. The Court
considers that R.T.E. should make further endeavours to allay
these fears and give the fullest information possible to the
workers concerned.
(C) The Union accept R.T.E.'s proposals for the Switching centre.
(D) As the Union have accepted in principle the proposals for the
maintenance area they should be implemented subject to further
local discussions as to training and accommodation.
(E) The Court is satisfied on the basis of the Union statement
which was not refuted that self editing had been specifically
excluded from Broadcasting in the '80s document. Accordingly
in these very specific circumstances the Court recommends that
the workers involved in that area be paid a lump sum of #1500
in addition to whatever normal compensation may be payable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
31st July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.