Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94491 Case Number: LCR14638 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN (R.T.E.) - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (N.U.J. |
Claim on behalf of three journalists for employment on a permanent and pensionable basis.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
notes that:-
(a) It has been R.T.E. policy since 1985 not to offer
permanent positions to new entrants
and
(b) In accordance with R.T.E. policy the three applicants
were offered and accepted Continuous Employment status.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94491 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14638
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN (R.T.E.)
AND
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (N.U.J.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of three journalists for employment on a
permanent and pensionable basis.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns three workers employed in R.T.E. Radio
Programmes: a Radio Producer, a Senior Radio Producer and a
Presenter/Reporter. The three are employed in the
'Continuous Employment' category, which has replaced the old
category of 'permanent and pensionable'.
The Union claims that the 1978 "Recruitment Training and
Career Development Journalists in R.T.E." agreement entitled
the journalists to opt for full staff status after a total of
5 years on contract and that the three satisfied that
requirement. The authority rejected the Union's claim. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and
conciliation conferences were held at which agreement was not
reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of
July, 1994, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 14th of October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In October, 1988, the Union sought an assurance that the
three journalists would be employed on a permanent and
pensionable basis. There is no 10% quota clause in the
Yellow Book (Broadcasting in the 80's) Agreement for the
Programmes division, although the amended Clause 7 of
the Recruitment and Training Agreement 1978 applies.
Following the Labour Court Recommendation (LCR 12355)
and Clarification on the Staff Quota Dispute in the
Newsroom and R.T.E. Guide, journalists recruited through
public competition and employed for fixed terms
contracts were given permanent and pensionable status.
This, however, did not resolve anomalies in the
Programmes Division, in particular the status of the 3
journalists.
2. Two of the 3 had accumulated over five years each of
continuous service for R.T.E. on a variety of contracts.
Holidays and sick-leave were provided on the same basis
as staff contracts. The 3rd would have done so on the
expiry of the 2-year fixed term contract. Clause 7 of
the Recruitment and Training Agreement should apply to
the 3 regardless of the nature of their contracts given
that it was clear that they were an integral part of the
Programmes Division team. Consequently this Union made
their staffing on a permanent and pensionable basis a
condition of any agreement on the introduction of a new
category, i.e. Continuous Employment.
3. The 3 journalists have been offered, and have taken up
Continuous Employment Contracts without prejudice to
this case, in order to facilitate the payment of
increments, etc. It is unfair of the authority to pass
over these long serving staff members while 'tidying up'
outstanding contract issues in the Newsroom. Many of
those who were transferred to permanent and pensionable
status in 1989 were recruited into the Newsroom later
than the three reporters in the Radio Programmes
Division.
4. Permanent and Pensionable status is not being sought for
any others at present.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The R.T.E. position on this matter is that the 3 N.U.J.
members in question do not have an entitlement to
permanent and pensionable status. They were each
recruited into R.T.E. through a public competition in
1988 at a time when other entrants to the organisation
were being employed on a contract basis. This had been
the policy of the organisation since late 1985 following
the publication of the Stokes Kennedy Crowley Report
which had recommended, inter alia, substantial
reductions in staff numbers.
2. The Union alleged that R.T.E. was, in some way, in
breach of agreements. R.T.E. would strongly dispute
this but would have to point out that the agreements
referred to by the N.U.J. do not apply to two of the
individuals referred to (details supplied to the Court).
The Union does not represent the Radio Producer grade in
negotiations with R.T.E. Therefore, references to
N.U.J. agreements in relation to the two are irrelevant.
3. One of the 3 journalists applied for a Producer position
through a public competition in 1988, in addition to
applying for a journalist position that year. She was
given a contract as a Radio Producer from 1st November,
1989, arising from that competition. No other radio
producer recruited externally in the 1988 Radio Producer
competition has been given permanent and pensionable
status. Clearly, to give such status to her or to the
second journalist who was successful in an internal
Radio Producer competition in 1989, would have serious
repercussions within the grade of Radio Producer, which
is represented by S.I.P.T.U.
4. The position in relation to the 3rd claimant is somewhat
different in that she was in fact in a grade represented
by N.U.J., i.e., presenter/reporter. Originally, she
was a permanent and pensionable member of staff but
resigned from R.T.E. with effect from 6th April, 1982
taking a refund of her superannuation contributions.
She was successful in a journalist competition in 1988.
She accepted continuous employment status with effect
from 30th November, 1992.
The N.U.J. has made reference to Labour Court
Recommendation LCR 12355 and clarification of same of
16th August, 1989. The clarification stated that
vacancies since July, 1989, should be filled on a
temporary contract basis. The N.U.J. did not make any
reference at the time of the Labour Court proceedings to
the positions of the 3 journalists. Therefore, clearly,
the recommendation of the Court in relation to permanent
and pensionable status did not apply to them. In that
event there is now no case for granting permanent and
pensionable status.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
notes that:-
(a) It has been R.T.E. policy since 1985 not to offer
permanent positions to new entrants
and
(b) In accordance with R.T.E. policy the three applicants
were offered and accepted Continuous Employment status.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
M.K./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.