Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93381 Case Number: LCR14314 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a pay claim/upgrading for two operators in the office of the Film Censor.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. Given all the
circumstances, the Court considers that the pay relationship for
the projectionist for the future should be 80% of the craftsmens'
rate of pay. (The Chief Projectionist should enjoy a differential
of 15% above this rate).
The above changes can only be effected in accordance with the
provisions of the PESP.
The Court notes that the 3% applicable under Clause 3 has been
implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
PESP.
The parties should therefore discuss the payment of the balance of
the increase and the date of its implementation in accordance with
the relevant provisions of Annex 1 to Appendix A of the PESP.
The above is recommended subject to acceptance and implementation
of the changes in work practices required as a consequence of the
implementation of legislation and revised structures in the Film
Censor's Office.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93381 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14314
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(FILM CENSOR'S OFFICE)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a pay claim/upgrading for two operators in
the office of the Film Censor.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union is pursuing a claim under Clause 4 of Annex 1
to Appendix A of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (PESP). The claim is in respect of two film
projectionists who are seeking an upgrading to the civil
service pay scale (details supplied). The upgrading is
sought as a result of increases in work load which have been
brought about as a result of the Video Recordings Act 1989
and the proposed implementation of the Censorship of Films
(Amendment) Bill 1992.
2. The Department accepted that the workers' jobs would be
affected by the new legislation. It was not in a position to
negotiate on any claim as the restructuring of the Office had
yet to be announced. The dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission and
conciliation conferences were held of 18th November, 1992 and
8th April, 1993.
3. At the second conciliation conference it was agreed that
the workers would be paid #5 as an interim payment pending
negotiations on the restructuring plan. The interim payment
was agreed on the basis that the Union was free to reactivate
its claim before 1st June 1993, if the restructuring plans
had still not been announced.
4. The claim was referred to the Labour Court under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 29th June,
1993. A Labour Court investigation took place on 15th
November, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has sought regrading and improved rates of
pay, while indicating a willingness to take on a new range of
duties arising from the implementation of legislation. The
workers' claim was first submitted in 1989 when it was
discovered that relativity with the private sector had fallen
from 95% in 1976 to 75% in 1991. The introduction of changed
work practices in the office has provided an opportunity to
resolve the problem.
2. The process has been a lengthy one and in the interim
the workers have taken on extra duties and facilitated the
development of the office. The workers are also willing to
participate in any evaluation exercise which the Department
requires. The Department is free to use either internal or
external comparators. The workers have a highly developed
range of skills and are not content with an approach which
leaves them far below colleagues either inside or outside the
service with similar qualifications. Outside of the context
of the PESP, the Department is free to conduct a grading
exercise on any group of workers.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers have traditionally been linked to the
smaller cinemas in Dublin and not to any public service
grade. This linkage has remained and all increases sought on
the basis of this relationship have been granted. There has
never been any pay relationship other than with the cinema
industry and there is no basis for any change to a public
service relationship.
2. The Department has attempted to address the claim in the
context of clause 3 of the PESP. This has included the
payment of an allowance of #5 per week since 1st January,
1993. The Union has changed the goalposts on a number of
occasions since the beginning of the consideration of its
claim (details supplied). At all meetings, the Department
has maintained that the claim can only be dealt with under
the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP. The payment of the
allowance of #5 per week is approximately 3% of the pay of
these workers and would represent the full extent of the
Department's commitment in 1993 under Clause 3 of the PESP.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. Given all the
circumstances, the Court considers that the pay relationship for
the projectionist for the future should be 80% of the craftsmens'
rate of pay. (The Chief Projectionist should enjoy a differential
of 15% above this rate).
The above changes can only be effected in accordance with the
provisions of the PESP.
The Court notes that the 3% applicable under Clause 3 has been
implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
PESP.
The parties should therefore discuss the payment of the balance of
the increase and the date of its implementation in accordance with
the relevant provisions of Annex 1 to Appendix A of the PESP.
The above is recommended subject to acceptance and implementation
of the changes in work practices required as a consequence of the
implementation of legislation and revised structures in the Film
Censor's Office.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd December, 1993 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.