INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Terms of Trade Union/ Company Agreement.
2. StnaG is a publisher/broadcaster set up in 1996. The channel was established to provide a comprehensive range of programmes primarily in the Irish language. In 1999 StnaG started trading as TG4. The core staff comprises 80 people. The claim before the Court is on behalf of 50 members of the SIPTU Union.
The case before the Court concerns the failure of the Union to renegotiate the House Agreement between the Union members and TG4. The Union are seeking an increase in wages which management claim is well in excess of the National Wage Agreement, Sustaining Progress. The Union are also seeking increases in other general terms and conditions, a) an increase in the existing roster duty allowance and a pull back in the time this payment is made, b) 2 days extra annual leave, and c) a move from a defined contribution pension scheme to a defined benefit scheme. The Union are also requesting the Company to join with them in setting up a Joint Working Party to look at the issue of providing cr�che facilities. The Company agreed to this at the hearing.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th April 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th September, 2006.
3. 1.The Union contend that the pay rates in TG4 are seriously out of line with the pay rates applicable in RTE which is also a Public Service Broadcast provider.
2. The staff of TG4 are one of two groups of employees in the Public Service / Commercial Semi-State sector not covered by a Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. A Defined Benefit Pension scheme offers much more certainty to their members' pension on retirement.
3. There has been no increase in the rostered duty allowance since 1/1/2002. The Union are seeking an increase to €40 per duty and that it should be paid from 22.00 hrs. instead of from 24.00 hrs. as at present.
4.The Union are seeking to have the provision of one privilege day, to be taken on Good Friday or Christmas Eve, to be implemented across all grades and categories.
4. 1.Provision for pay is agreed under the National Pay Deal and is adhered to by the Company. The claim by the Union is a cost-increasing claim
2.The pension scheme was set up jointly and in agreement with SIPTU as a Defined Benefit scheme at the time and has continued so ever since.
3. The Company reject the claim for an increase in the rostered duty allowance on the grounds that it is cost increasing.
4. The Company have no problem addressing the issue of the privilege day.
The Union submitted a number of claims to the Court following the failure of the parties to negotiate a new House Agreement. Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends as follows:
The Union claimed an increase of 12% in pay of all grades and categories above the terms of the nationally agreed pay increases. Having considered the claim, the Court is of the view that this is a cost-increasing claim and consequently is in breach of Sustaining Progress. Therefore, the Court rejects the claim.
Review of Defined Contribution Pension Scheme
The Union sought implementation of a Defined Benefit Pension Scheme to replace the previously agreed Defined Contribution Scheme. The Court recommends that the parties should meet to address improving the current Defined Contribution Scheme but does not concede the Union's claim for the introduction of a new Defined Benefit Pension Scheme.
Rostered Duty / Allowance / Shift Pay
The Court recommends concession of the Union's claim that the Rostered Duty Allowance should be increased to €40, this increase should apply from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. The Court does not recommend in favour of the claim to change the times when the Rostered Duty Allowance should be applied.
Annual Leave Entitlements
The Court notes that the Contract of Employment states that the basic Annual Leave Entitlements are 22 days plus a privilege day which may be taken either on Good Friday or on Christmas Eve plus 1 additional day after 5 years service. The Court endorses the annual leave entitlements as specified in the Contract of Employment and does not recommend an increase in that entitlement. However, the Court recommends that in the event that the privilege day cannot be availed of on either of the two specified days then the employee must be granted a day off in lieu at another time.
To address the Union's claim on Cr�che Facilities, the employer offered to set up a Joint Working Party to examine all aspects of providing such facilities. The Court notes that this was agreeable to the Union and, therefore, recommends that the Joint Working Party should complete its work by no later than the end of 2006.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd October, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.