Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93259 Case Number: AD9343 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. DC5/93 concerning compensation for loss of roster duty allowance and overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. Having regard to the
temporary nature of the claimant's appointment, the fact that it
was commonly known that staff reductions were scheduled in the
area to which she was temporarily assigned and in particular, the
agreement between the Union and the Authority on compensation, the
Court does not consider that the Union has established grounds for
compensation in this case.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Authority's appeal against the
compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93259 DECISION NO. AD4393
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. DC5/93
concerning compensation for loss of roster duty allowance and
overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker has been employed by RTE since 25th November,
1976. In February, 1990, she applied for a temporary position
as Presentation Assistant in Television. On 9th May, 1990,
she was offered a three-month assignment in this post and on
29th November, 1990 was informed that her assignment would be
extended on a weekly basis. On the 7th November, 1991, the
Authority advised her that she would be returning to the sales
division with effect from the 18th November, 1991.
2. The Union sought a meeting with the Company and this
took place on the 19th November, 1991. The Company agreed to
postpone the transfer until after this meeting. The Union
suggested referring the matter to a Rights Commissioner but
the Company objected. On the 10th March, 1992, the Union
referred the case to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on the 15th September,
1992. At this meeting the Company agreed to refer the matter
to a Rights Commissioner
3. The Rights Commissioner heard the case on the 22nd
January, 1993 and issued his recommendation (DC5/93) on the
12th March, 1993. The Rights Commissioner recommended:-
"Taking all factors into account, therefore,
including her revised improved salary scale, and
totally without prejudice to the provisions of the
existing internal agreement on compensation or
procedures for the future I recommend that RTE pay
the worker an ex-gratia lump sum of #1,500
compensation in full and final settlement of her
claim".
(The worker's name was mentioned in the
recommendation).
4. The Authority appealed the recommendation to the Labour
Court on the 8th April, 1993. The Court heard the appeal on
the 25th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's level of earnings was reduced by 20%.
2. The grade to which the worker was reassigned permits a
higher level of earnings and therefore, the worker, on her
return to that grade, should have been placed at a higher
point in the scale.
3. The worker should be placed at the same point on the
scale as her higher paid colleagues.
4. The worker had a reasonable expectation that she would
continue to enjoy earnings in the region of #20,000 per annum.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was assigned on a temporary basis to
presentation T.V.
2. It was known that staff reductions were scheduled in the
area to which the worker was temporarily assigned.
3. The worker was paid at a higher rate than her other
Presentation Assistant colleagues due to the short duration of
her assignment.
4. The agreed position on compensation for loss of roster
duty allowance and after midnight duties is that it applies
only to permanent pensionable staff who have been on this for
a minimum of three years.
5. The worker's salary is now 19% higher than the maximum
of the Presentation Assistants and she has an expectation of
further increases.
6. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation would set a
precedent and would give the worker a higher compensation
package than those who had been in presentation T.V. on a long
term basis.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. Having regard to the
temporary nature of the claimant's appointment, the fact that it
was commonly known that staff reductions were scheduled in the
area to which she was temporarily assigned and in particular, the
agreement between the Union and the Authority on compensation, the
Court does not consider that the Union has established grounds for
compensation in this case.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Authority's appeal against the
compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
------------------
11th June, 1993
P. O'C/J.C. Chairman