Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92133 Case Number: LCR13669 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings and productivity.
Recommendation:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties. On the two claims before it the Court recommends as
follows:
Productivity
Having regard to the introduction of the C.A.T.S. systems the
Court is of the opinion that the changes which have come about
are clearly within the scope of the "Broadcasting Services in
the 1980's" agreements and in the circumstances no additional
payments to anybody, directly or indirectly concerned are
warranted. The Court does not therefore recommend acceptance of
the Union's claim.
Loss of Earnings:
On this issue the Court does not consider that any case has been
sustained which would warrant a departure from the application
of the existing agreed formula to compensate for loss of
earnings.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92133 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13669
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. Dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings and
productivity.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arises from changes resulting from the
introduction of new technology. The new technology is known as
C.A.T.S. (Computer Assisted Transmissions System) and has given
rise to new work practices and crewing levels.
The dispute concerns workers in presentation television
(Presentation Assistants), Television sound (presentation sound
operators) and Video Tape Recording (V.T.R.) (technical
operators). The Union is claiming compensation for loss of
earnings for all of these groups affected by C.A.T.S. and
increased compensation on behalf of the V.T.R. area. The
Company claims that in the early 1980's it negotiated specific
agreements with the Unions in anticipation of the need for
changes in technology and that it is applying the terms of the
agreed compensation and productivity formulae. On 9th April,
1991 a number of issues, including the 2 main issues in this
dispute, were referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
series of conciliation conferences were held between April and
December, 1991 and most of the issues were resolved. The 2 main
issues were not resolved and in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 the dispute was referred on
27th February, 1992 to the Labour Court. The Labour Court
investigated the dispute on 7th May, 1992 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of new technology and work practices
will provide the Company with substantial and ongoing
savings. The workers concerned are making a significant
contribution in order to make the changes effective but
will suffer a loss of earnings. There must be a balance
between the savings that accrue to the Company and the loss
of income that the workers will suffer as a consequence of
the changed work practices.
2. The loss in income for the workers concerned ranges
from 7% to 30% depending on the individual grade. A lump
sum payment is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the
reduction in earnings. On-going payments are the only fair
way to resolve the matter. The Company proposal that
compensation be limited to those with more than 3 years
service in the particular area concerned is not acceptable.
3. With the introduction of C.A.T.S. the workers in
V.T.R. will be making a significant contribution to
productivity. Proper recognition for this co-operation
should be made by doubling the present V.T.R. pay related
pensionable productivity allowance (currently #29.19 per
fortnight).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the early 1980's the Company foresaw the need to
introduce new technology and negotiated specific agreements
with the Unions to enable its orderly introduction. These
agreements have yielded increases in pay for the workers
concerned. They have also benefited from promotions and
redeployment associated with the changes in work practice.
The Union in making this claim is asking the Company to
compensate workers for a second time.
2. The Union's claim in respect of loss of earnings
cannot be substantiated. The Company recognises that loss
of earnings will occur and is prepared to deal with the
situation in accordance with the established formula i.e.
the payment of a lump sum equivalent to 14 months in
respect of roster duty allowance and, by way of exception,
after midnight overtime. This formula has been endorsed by
the Court on two occasions. Any further cost increasing
claims cannot be entertained.
3. In relation to workers in V.T.R. the Company does not
see any justification for an increase in productivity
payments. V.T.R. staff were not redeployed, there were no
job losses, and disturbance was less than that which
applied to other groups. There is no reason why V.T.R.
staff should be treated differently to other grades. The
Company has implemented the agreed compensation formula and
the V.T.R. staff have received very substantial benefits by
way of promotions, career and personal development.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties. On the two claims before it the Court recommends as
follows:
Productivity
Having regard to the introduction of the C.A.T.S. systems the
Court is of the opinion that the changes which have come about
are clearly within the scope of the "Broadcasting Services in
the 1980's" agreements and in the circumstances no additional
payments to anybody, directly or indirectly concerned are
warranted. The Court does not therefore recommend acceptance of
the Union's claim.
Loss of Earnings:
On this issue the Court does not consider that any case has been
sustained which would warrant a departure from the application
of the existing agreed formula to compensate for loss of
earnings.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
4th, June, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
Note:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary