Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86960 Case Number: AD8728 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - N.U.S.M.W.I. |
Appeal by the Company, against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (No. CM/17017) concerning a meal allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Rights Commissioner did confirm that
the workers concerned are not entitled to the meal allowance in
question and in view of this is of the opinion that the parties
are obliged to begin negotiations on a buy out of the informally
established practice without further day.
The Court therefore determines that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation as clarified above should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86960 THE LABOUR COURT AD28/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 28 OF 1987
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
NATIONAL UNION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company, against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation (No. CM/17017) concerning a meal allowance.
Background:
2. The Appeal concerns 30 sheetmetal workers. The Union claimed
the retention of a meal allowance where unscheduled overtime is
being worked and contends that some of the workers had this
benefit for over twenty years. The Company has stopped the
payment of a meal allowance in such circumstances on the grounds
that it is at variance with the Aircraft Trademen's Agreement
which sets down the circumstances in which meal allowances are
paid. No agreement was reached at local level and the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 25th August, 1986 the Rights Commissioner
issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"One must accept that under the provisions of the
Aircraft Trademen's Agreement members of the National
Union of Sheet Metal Workers are not entitled to a meal
allowance when working unscheduled overtime. It seems
however that this provision has been waived in their
favour by a practice which began, and survived up to
recently, by default. The Union members have therefore
acquired enough of a right to it to expect its
continuance. But as it is an anomaly within the
Agreement the parties ought consider ending it through
a buy-out. In the meanwhile it should continue."
The Company appealed that Recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 27th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) It has been the practice that where the workers are
asked, and agree, to work unplanned overtime they are
paid a meal allowance. The Union is merely seeking the
retention of this practice.
(ii) It is unreasonable that the Company should expect the
workers to disrupt domestic meal arrangements and work
unscheduled overtime without such an allowance.
(iii) The Rights Commissioner investigated this matter
throughly and it is incomprehensible to the Union that
the Company has pursued this somewhat minor issue to
its present level. The Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should now be upheld.
(iv) This unscheduled overtime is periodic and not something
that occurs everyday. It does not usually involve many
members at any time. The cost of concession of the
claim is minimal.
(v) The payment would not apply to systamatic overtime or
to overtime for which notice was received on the day
prior to the overtime being worked.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The workers enjoy excellent pay and conditions by Irish
standards.
(b) Over 300 tradesmen's jobs in the Company are dependent
on the Company quoting competitive prices for
Maintenance and overhaul of foreign carriers aircraft.
Any additional unwarranted costs will ultimately have
an adverse effect on existing levels of employment. In
addition it is difficult to pass on to the public any
costs arising from the maintenance of the Company's
fleet. Deregulation on all routes has necessitated
reductions in costs if the Company is to stay in
business.
(c) The Aircraft Tradesments Agreement makes specific
provisions for a meal allowance only in the particular
circumstance of an employee being 'called in' for
overtime and his home meal arrangement being disturbed.
This provision will stand until such time as the
Agreement is being re-negotiated.
(d) The Workers are not forced to work overtime. The
Agreement requires that tradesmen guarantee to work a
reasonable amount of overtime.
(e) Maintenance and Engineering management are mindful of
general problems associated with overtime in the
Sheetmetal shop and have recruited an additional ten
staff in 1986 to improve the situation.
(f) In the past as a result of an informal practice that
developed, the Sheetmetal workers did obtain a benefit
to which they were not entitled. This does not imply a
continuing right to a meal allowance for working
unscheduled overtime.
(g) There are some 3,500 staff in the Company in categories
where overtime applied. Many of these are in areas
where disruptions can give rise to unforeseen overtime
requirements at very short notice. The provision of a
meal allowance does not apply elsewhere in the airline
in such circumstances and to apply it to the Workers
would be at variance with the general practice in the
Company and would not be helpful to its industrial
relations climate.
DECISION:
5. The Court notes that the Rights Commissioner did confirm that
the workers concerned are not entitled to the meal allowance in
question and in view of this is of the opinion that the parties
are obliged to begin negotiations on a buy out of the informally
established practice without further day.
The Court therefore determines that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation as clarified above should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
13th April, 1987 ----------------
T O'M/U.S. Deputy Chairman