Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94202 Case Number: LCR14508 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - A WORKER;AND A GROUP OF WORKERS |
Dispute concerning the remuneration of sound-operators.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the application of overscale payments was in
respect of additional duties and responsibilities and the
liability to undertake such additional duties and responsibilities
following negotiations and agreement with the recognised Trade
Union.
Whilst the filling of the vacant posts was carried out by
different methods, the Court finds no evidence that the manner in
which the appointments were made was discriminatory.
The Court considers that, in the interests of transparency, the
Authority should inform staff through normal procedures of the
method by which vacancies will be filled in the future.
In the light of the above, the Court finds that the complainants
have not been discriminated against and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94202 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14508
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the remuneration of sound-operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the remuneration of B-Grade
sound-operators employed by the Authority at the former
'Radio 2', now '2FM'. The operators are paid a different
rate to that of 'B-Grade sound-operators with overscale',
i.e. BOs. The worker, who represented a named group of
colleagues, claims that discrimination exists in that the
methods by which overscales were allotted have been
inconsistent, have ignored objective criteria and are in
contravention of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
The worker also claims that there is a "potential for latent
discrimination based on sex and/or marital status". The
Authority rejected the claims. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 18th of March, 1994, in accordance
with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 1st of July, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1979, when the 'Radio 2' agreement was reached
between the Authority and the I.T.G.W.U., overscales
have been allotted on four separate occasions. The
methods of selection were as follows:-
(i) 1986 - relevant staff invited to apply - open
competition;
(ii) 1988 - overscales allotted at management's
discretion - no open competition;
(iii) 1990 - overscales allotted at management
discretion - no open competition;
(iv) 1992 - relevant staff were invited to an open dual
competition:- Senior sound-operator (B+)
positions and overscale positions, thereby
arising, were filled.
No consistent criteria exist by which the BOs positions
are filled. Open competition applied in 1986 and 1992
but not in 1988 and 1990.
The BOs positions are not filled on the basis of
competence - all the staff perform the same cycle of
work and are expected to be equally competent.
Seniority is not the basis for the appointments, either
in the grade, the section or the organisation. There
are staff in each of the above categories who are
without overscale although they are senior to staff with
overscale in the same category.
The BOs are not allotted on the basis that some staff
are more suitable for 'additional responsibility'. All
have taken on additional responsibility at times,
without any criticism of their performance.
Any of the above methods might be fair, if consistently
applied. As no method has been consistently applied, it
can be concluded that the process is not being applied
in an objectively justifiable way, and is, therefore,
discriminatory.
2. The situation now exists that workers are being paid
differently for doing the same work. This came about
when, in 1979, the Union (I.T.G.W.U.) recommended the
acceptance of the 'Radio 2 agreement' (details supplied
to the Court). A certain number of overscales and
promotions were conceded by the Authority as
'sweeteners', in order to secure the agreement. There
was a tacit understanding that the 'additional
responsibilities' would not and could not have any
effect, due to the vague definition in the agreement of
the duties attaching to the overscale position. The
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply
in the radio sound section and discrimination is
practised as a result.
3. It is conceivable and probable that discrimination based
on sex or martial status, or both , has happened or will
happen in such a way as to avoid being successfully
challenged by reference to legislation. Until such time
as equality is made to apply the potential for latent
discrimination exists.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is clear from the 1979 'Radio 2 agreement' that the
overscale payments were made to certain B-Grades who had
a liability for additional duties (details supplied to
the Court). Additional duties were set out at the time
of the agreement. There is no basis for the suggestion
that all B-Grade operators have the same duties and
responsibilities.
2. The allegation of discrimination is refuted in the
strongest possible terms. The difference in payment
arises from the application by the Authority of the 1979
'Radio 2 agreement'.
3. The allegation that there was inconsistency in the
methods applied to the selection of B-Grade operators on
overscale is unfounded. The worker has specifically
mentioned the competition of September, 1992. He, an
unsuccessful candidate, is apparently trying to bring
the interview process in the Authority into disrepute.
He is also trying to detract from the abilities of
colleagues who were successful in the competition. The
competition arose from a finding of the Special
Adjudication Committee in the Company (details supplied
to the Court).
4. The Authority, whose procedures comply with legislation,
clearly identifies itself as an equal opportunities
employer.
5. By pursuing these issues with the Labour Court, the
worker has shown complete disregard for internal
procedures for dealing with such disputes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the application of overscale payments was in
respect of additional duties and responsibilities and the
liability to undertake such additional duties and responsibilities
following negotiations and agreement with the recognised Trade
Union.
Whilst the filling of the vacant posts was carried out by
different methods, the Court finds no evidence that the manner in
which the appointments were made was discriminatory.
The Court considers that, in the interests of transparency, the
Authority should inform staff through normal procedures of the
method by which vacancies will be filled in the future.
In the light of the above, the Court finds that the complainants
have not been discriminated against and accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd July, 1994 Tom McGrath
M.K./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.