FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY BAY FM (REPRESENTED BY JOHN F. FLANNERY & ASSOCIATES) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim by a worker for pay parity with other presenters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns a worker who is employed by the Company as a radio presenter. The Union is seeking a review of her pay on the basis that she is not paid at the same level as the other presenters employed at the station. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in August, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 22nd October, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant is the most qualified radio presenter employed by the Company. Based on experience acquired over eight years continuous service she brings greater status and profile to the station as a consequence of the continued success of her show.
2. In view of the claimant's current track record and increased listenership she is entitled to a pay review that would result in pay parity between different presenters at the employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and, therefore, precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
2. The Company does not accept that there has been a significant increase in listenership figures for the claimant's programme. The data produced by independently audited surveys do not reflect the listenership increases indicated by the Union since 2000. The claimant is also aware that the Company is dissatisfied at the ratings of her programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the claimant's salary has been adjusted by the application of the pay agreements associated with the various National Programmes. In these circumstances any cost increasing claim for a salary review is precluded by the terms of the Sustaining Progress Agreement. Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th November, 2003______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.