Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87179 Case Number: LCR11139 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - FWUI |
Claim, by the Union, for the automatic upgrading of long-service clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. While the Court accepts that there is a historical background
to the employment concerned which could lead to a feeling of
unfairness insofar as promotional opportunities are concerned, it
does not concur with the opinion expressed, that this can be
attributed to the grading system as presently operated by the
Company. Neither does the Court accept that the proposals put
forward by the Union is the appropriate means by which the issue
in question can be resolved.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87179 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11139
CC861433 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11139
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union, for the automatic upgrading of
long-service clerical staff.
Background:
2. In early, 1986, the Union discussed with the Company the
extension of the existing agreement, dating from 1974, which
provides automatic progression from recruitment clerical grade IV
to grade III, to apply to all clerical grades up to and including
grade I, in respect of staff recruited in the 1940's, 1950's and
1960's. The Union proposed the claim in an effort to correct the
position of clerical staff, largely female, who despite lengthy
service were still congregated in the lower grades. The Union
believes that for a variety of reasons (details supplied to the
Court) female clerical staff in particular have failed to crack
the promotional system. The Union acknowledged that this
situation has now changed and women are now being assimilated
fully into the workforce on an equal basis with men. However, the
Union believes that corrective action must be taken in respect of
employees with 25 to 40 years' service who are not in a position,
due to past attitudes, to compete on equal terms and therefore
special consideration should obtain for these workers (details of
Union suggestion on criteria for upgrading are attached at
Appendix I). After a number of meetings between the parties, the
Company rejected the claim on 15th July, 1986, on the basis that
no inequality exists, the 1974 agreement on progression caters
adequately for this sort of situation, many of the workers are
already in receipt of long service increments, the conceivable
cost of conceding the claim is too costly, given the current
financial situation and because it would be wrong to encourage
staff to think that promotion should be based on seniority. On
28th August, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 15th December, 1986, (an earlier date being cancelled),
however, as no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred
on 5th March, 1987, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 2nd April, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) During the 1950's and perhaps later, the recruitment
qualifications for female clerical staff in the Company
were an honours Leaving Certificate, whereas male staff
only required a pass Leaving Certificate.
(b) Placement on training courses was usually dependant on
the recommendation of local supervisors. These were
almost invariably male and tended to feel that only
males needed developmental training since only males
would be promoted, thus ensuring a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
(c) Until the early 1960's, promotional positions were
filled on the basis of individuals who were considered
suitable being put into vacancies as they arose rather
than by staff vacancy notices. The system ensures that
at the time of actually filling the job, female staff
had reduced grounds for complaint, since training,
accumulated experience in related jobs and adroit
positioning would invariably mean that males had an
advantage.
(d) The result of this was that throughout the 1950's and
1960's, the minority of women who stayed in employment
saw virtually all the promotional positions taken up by
men. It might have been expected when the expansion in
recruitment came in the late 1960's and early 1970's,
bring new promotional positions, that these women,
after patient waiting, would now have the chance of
promotion. What actually happened was that the new
recruits were better able to compete for promotions
since they were more highly educated and more
adaptable.
(f) As a result of the social climate prevailing in the
1950's and 1960's, a generation of female employees in
the Company not only suffered at the time but because
of subsequent developments, are still suffering. The
Union accepts that on an on-going basis promotion
should result from fair competition regardless of sex
and that to a large extent this has been achieved for
the recent generation of female staff. Unless one
decides that their successor's gain justifies the
sacrifice, it is necessary that corrective action be
taken as the only effective way of belatedly redressing
the grievance of these long-serving staff.
(e) The Union believes that it's claim does not represent
over compensation since employees would have to have 25
years' service before being guaranteed clerical grade
II and 35 years' service before being guaranteed grade
I. For the vast majority of their male contemporaries
these grades were reached in less than half that time.
The Union further believes that contrary to the
Company's fear, this promise of promotion to grade I
after 35 years' service would not convey the impression
that one does not need to work for promotion through
the existing procedures.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company is being asked to guarantee promotions to
senior promotional levels, to a certain group of
clerical staff, simply on the basis of their length of
service. This would be in direct and serious
contradiction to the policy in the Company and in
employment generally, whereby access to promotional
grades is based on the level of work required by the
job and on the individual's capabilities and
qualifications.
(ii) It would be unreasonable to single out one segment of
clerical staff and to concede them highly favourable
treatment in promoting them to grades in excess of what
their jobs warrant and in many cases, depending on what
concessions are made, several grades above the job
grade.
(iii) It is quite unjustified and unrealistic that conditions
that prevailed generally in employment in the 1950's
and 1960's should be deemed to constitute grounds for
the concessions now of substantial compensation for a
selected group of staff. This is particularly so in
the Company where employment policies and practices
were very progressive and fair for the time.
(iv) Jobs in the Company are reasonably well paid by Irish
standards. All clerical scales in addition to annual
increments have 4 long service increments which apply
after 2, 4, 6 and 8 years after the normal maximum is
reached. The combination of normal and long service
increments does provide for a very satisfactory
progression and reward for service within the
particular grade.
(v) The Company is very conscious of having many staff in
other categories on standard grades for their jobs and
with long service. Many of these would consider the
career and promotional opportunities open to clerical
staff as being particularly attractive and such
progression has featured strongly in their relativity
claims in the past. Concession of this claim could
well raise issues and allegations of preferential
treatment from other staff categories.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. While the Court accepts that there is a historical background
to the employment concerned which could lead to a feeling of
unfairness insofar as promotional opportunities are concerned, it
does not concur with the opinion expressed, that this can be
attributed to the grading system as presently operated by the
Company. Neither does the Court accept that the proposals put
forward by the Union is the appropriate means by which the issue
in question can be resolved.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________________
Deputy Chairman
26th April, 1987
B.O'N./J.C.
APPENDIX I
UNION SUGGESTION ON CRITERIA FOR UPGRADING
1. GRADE IV TO GRADE III
In addition to the existing system (automatic progression
after 8 years on the Grade IV scale and have reached the 13th
point of the Grade IV scale) progression should take place
after 15 years cumulative service in the Company.
2. GRADE III TO GRADE II
Automatic progression after:
(a) 8 years on Grade III scale and 20 years cumulative
service in Aer Lingus, on Grades IV and III
or
(b) 25 years cumulative service in Aer Lingus
or
(c) 20 years cumulative service in Aer Lingus where 10
years or more were spent on stenographic grades.
3. GRADE II TO GRADE I
Automatic progression after:
(a) 8 years on grade II and 30 years cumulative service in
Aer Lingus on Grades IV, III and II.
or
(b) 35 years cumulative service in Aer Lingus
or
(c) 30 years cumulative service where 10 years or more were
spent on stenographic grades.