Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87383 Case Number: LCR11359 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of six assistant duty managers for (a) increase in payment for night duties, and (b) increased time off for the alleged lack of break facilities during night duties.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the view that the difference in the night duties worked by the
Assistant Duty Managers and the regular night duties worked by
Technical Supervisors is no longer such as would warrant the
different rates paid for these duties.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties should agree
appropriate rates for the claimants with reference to the rates
and duties applicable to other supervisors with similar rosters.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
additional time off.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87383 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11359
CC87557 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11359
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND (FWUI)
(CIVIL AVIATION BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of six assistant duty managers for
(a) increase in payment for night duties, and
(b) increased time off for the alleged lack of break
facilities during night duties.
Background:
2. The FWUI is the only union with a negotiating licence,
representing three of the six workers concerned. The Irish
Aviation Executive Staff Association (IAESA), an in-house staff
representative body, has the other three staff in membership. The
workers concerned act on behalf of the duty station manager in the
period 0015 hours to 0715 hours. They work seven nights in every
42 day roster for which they are compensated by a rostered duty
allowance (RDA) of #13.01 per night plus an additional day off at
the end of the night duty period in lieu of break time not
available on nights. The Union sought an increase in the RDA plus
an extra day off but this was rejected by Management. Local level
negotiations failed to resolve the dispute and on the 6th April,
1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on the 11th May
failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 19th June, 1987.
Claim (a) - increase in payment for night duties
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned have the full responsibility of the
duty manager to meet the demands of the schedule within
pre-defined staffing and the budgetary limits and ensure
the highest quality of passenger and aircraft turnaround
handling. This means the co-ordination and
implementation of the necessary action to meet the
demands of schedule and they must liaise with all other
operational areas to ensure an integrated end product.
Because of these requirements, they are the senior ground
operations person on duty (details of functions supplied
to the Court).
(b) Because of the organisation of the area during 0015 hours
to 0715 hours, special difficulties are created due to a
shortage of manpower to cope with the unusual and often
unforeseen circumstances. The assistant duty manager is
the highest Aer Lingus authority figure at the time and
must be responsible for the efficient allocation of
resources to cope with diversions, over-flights and any
sudden change in the planned operation.
(c) It is for these reasons that the Union is claiming that
differentials should apply to staff performing more
responsible tasks on all duties but particularly night
duties.
(d) For a number of years, time and a half has been paid to
loaders. In addition, they receive an RDA of #5.46 per
night, i.e. on an average week of nights from Friday to
Friday the operative does significantly better than the
assistant duty manager, e.g.,
Operative 7 maximum of scale -
Basic #225.95 @ T1.50 = #112.87 over basic pay + RDA's of
#50.98 - therefore, the total remuneration over and above
basic for a week of nights equals #163.85.
An assistant duty manager receives #13.01 (night RDA) x 7
= #91.07 + Saturday and Sunday RDA, tradesmen in ground
operations receive #24.56 per night plus Saturday and
Sunday RDAs and supervisors, chargehands and foremen get
#25.12 per night in addition to a Saturday and Sunday
RDA.
(e) The Union is of the view that the small group of staff
who are making this claim should have it conceded as the
Company, with regard to trades and operatives, have
recognised the need for greater financial rewards for
working such duties. The treatment of the claim should
yield to the claimants a payment in line with their
responsibilities.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The facilities made available to the claimants include
allowance for two people to be on annual leave at any one
time during the year which is not normal for small
groups, at a cost of an overtime shift in the week that
it occurs. Also, by virtue of the type of roster
operated, overtime (in respect of full shifts) is
available as a minimum cover is maintained. As a result
of this overtime and the RDA payments, the claimants
earned a gross income of between #21,238.35 to #24,057.34
where basic salary ranged from #15,662.34 to #18,562.80
per annum in the year ended the 31/3/87. All other
rosters in that area involving 'seven night' duty
rotations were changed to one night at a time but the
claimants were opposed to any changes in their rotations.
(ii) These workers constitute a small group of senior staff
who are on the superintendent grades and enjoy the
conditions attaching to the superintendent grading
structures. They are on high basic rates of pay and
because of their roster situation, they are in a position
to earn considerable additional earnings as compared to
the majority of their superintendent colleagues. It
would be quite wrong and potentially costly to apply to
this group one aspect of the conditions that apply to
staff on a quite different grading structure, at lower
pay rates, working in a totally separate part of the
airline. This is particularly so in view of their high
level of grading and additional benefits.
(iii) Any increase in the RDA payments to superintendents could
mean a claim for an increase across the board to the
remainder of the clerical staff of whom they form part.
One claim has in fact already been submitted and it
spreads the net to include two other departments
(Maintenance & Engineering and Operations Control) and
has been submitted by IAESA which represents the vast
majority of superintendents in the Company.
(iv) On the claim for parity with the technical supervisors,
the Company must refer to the report of the Special
Committee on Relativities, appointed by the Employer
Labour Conference in 1980, and which issued its findings
in October, 1981. Prior to this the tradesmen had a
relativity to clerks and operatives had a relativity to
tradesmen. These relativities were a source of
widespread and recurring dissension and industrial
disruption. In an effort to eliminate all of this the
Committee was set up and its report resulted in all
categories, including clerks, being paid to terminate
those arrangements. These arrangements were accepted by
all groups and as a result relativity claims in the
Company are not valid.
Claim (b) - increased time off for alleged lack of break
facilities during night duty
Union's arguments:
5. (a) At present the claimants have one day off following
seven nights' working to compensate for the
inconvenience caused by not being able to leave their
desks for meal breaks. This means that the job demands
create a necessity to remain available while others take
their breaks. Cumulatively, it means a loss of
approximately seven hours over the seven nights of their
roster. The Company, in providing the workers with one
day off after their night duties, is simply compensating
them on an hour for hour basis.
(b) The Court has recognised in previous recommendations
that this compensation should be at overtime rates
(LCR10126 refers). The claim therefore is for an
increase in the time off after the night duties, in line
with the position outlined and providing for two days
off.
(c) The claimants have committed themselves to taking their
annual leave entitlements at times other than during
their night duty periods. This is of great benefit to
the Company and does not apply to staff throughout the
Company generally. The Union believes that this
consideration should be taken into account when dealing
with the claim.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) The rotation of nights begins on Friday night at 2330
and ends on the following Friday morning at 0730. Each
staff member is entitled to two days off per week. In
normal circumstances this group of staff would be off
duty on Wednesday and Thursday prior to nights but at
their request this was reduced to Thursday only and the
day in lieu of Wednesday was carried forward to the
weekend following the completion of nights. This means
that the weekend following nights would be as follows -
resting on Friday and Saturday, resting in lieu of
previous week on Sunday and resting for the following
week on Monday and Tuesday. In addition to this the
claimants made the case that they were on-call during
their total night duty and as a result were not in a
position to get their meal break. At that time they
were granted an extra day off to compensate for that.
This argument is no longer valid as each night there is
an experienced ramp agent on duty with them who can fill
in during their break time which is a normal practice
throughout the Company.
(ii) Despite this it is not intended to withdraw that day at
present. However, the Company is now considering the
abolition of a number of functions in the airline
because of their high cost and low return and this is
one of the areas under examination. The whole night
staffing is being reviewed and this is already concluded
in the cargo department where superintendent coverage is
now no longer required.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the view that the difference in the night duties worked by the
Assistant Duty Managers and the regular night duties worked by
Technical Supervisors is no longer such as would warrant the
different rates paid for these duties.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties should agree
appropriate rates for the claimants with reference to the rates
and duties applicable to other supervisors with similar rosters.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
additional time off.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st August, 1987 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG ---------------
Deputy Chairman
CD87383 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11359
CC87557 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11359
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND (FWUI)
(CIVIL AVIATION BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of six assistant duty managers for
(a) increase in payment for night duties, and
(b) increased time off for the alleged lack of break
facilities during night duties.
Background:
2. The FWUI is the only union with a negotiating licence,
representing three of the six workers concerned. The Irish
Aviation Executive Staff Association (IAESA), an in-house staff
representative body, has the other three staff in membership. The
workers concerned act on behalf of the duty station manager in the
period 0015 hours to 0715 hours. They work seven nights in every
42 day roster for which they are compensated by a rostered duty
allowance (RDA) of #13.01 per night plus an additional day off at
the end of the night duty period in lieu of break time not
available on nights. The Union sought an increase in the RDA plus
an extra day off but this was rejected by Management. Local level
negotiations failed to resolve the dispute and on the 6th April,
1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on the 11th May
failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 19th June, 1987.
Claim (a) - increase in payment for night duties
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned have the full responsibility of the
duty manager to meet the demands of the schedule within
pre-defined staffing and the budgetary limits and ensure
the highest quality of passenger and aircraft turnaround
handling. This means the co-ordination and
implementation of the necessary action to meet the
demands of schedule and they must liaise with all other
operational areas to ensure an integrated end product.
Because of these requirements, they are the senior ground
operations person on duty (details of functions supplied
to the Court).
(b) Because of the organisation of the area during 0015 hours
to 0715 hours, special difficulties are created due to a
shortage of manpower to cope with the unusual and often
unforeseen circumstances. The assistant duty manager is
the highest Aer Lingus authority figure at the time and
must be responsible for the efficient allocation of
resources to cope with diversions, over-flights and any
sudden change in the planned operation.
(c) It is for these reasons that the Union is claiming that
differentials should apply to staff performing more
responsible tasks on all duties but particularly night
duties.
(d) For a number of years, time and a half has been paid to
loaders. In addition, they receive an RDA of #5.46 per
night, i.e. on an average week of nights from Friday to
Friday the operative does significantly better than the
assistant duty manager, e.g.,
Operative 7 maximum of scale -
Basic #225.95 @ T1.50 = #112.87 over basic pay + RDA's of
#50.98 - therefore, the total remuneration over and above
basic for a week of nights equals #163.85.
An assistant duty manager receives #13.01 (night RDA) x 7
= #91.07 + Saturday and Sunday RDA, tradesmen in ground
operations receive #24.56 per night plus Saturday and
Sunday RDAs and supervisors, chargehands and foremen get
#25.12 per night in addition to a Saturday and Sunday
RDA.
(e) The Union is of the view that the small group of staff
who are making this claim should have it conceded as the
Company, with regard to trades and operatives, have
recognised the need for greater financial rewards for
working such duties. The treatment of the claim should
yield to the claimants a payment in line with their
responsibilities.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The facilities made available to the claimants include
allowance for two people to be on annual leave at any one
time during the year which is not normal for small
groups, at a cost of an overtime shift in the week that
it occurs. Also, by virtue of the type of roster
operated, overtime (in respect of full shifts) is
available as a minimum cover is maintained. As a result
of this overtime and the RDA payments, the claimants
earned a gross income of between #21,238.35 to #24,057.34
where basic salary ranged from #15,662.34 to #18,562.80
per annum in the year ended the 31/3/87. All other
rosters in that area involving 'seven night' duty
rotations were changed to one night at a time but the
claimants were opposed to any changes in their rotations.
(ii) These workers constitute a small group of senior staff
who are on the superintendent grades and enjoy the
conditions attaching to the superintendent grading
structures. They are on high basic rates of pay and
because of their roster situation, they are in a position
to earn considerable additional earnings as compared to
the majority of their superintendent colleagues. It
would be quite wrong and potentially costly to apply to
this group one aspect of the conditions that apply to
staff on a quite different grading structure, at lower
pay rates, working in a totally separate part of the
airline. This is particularly so in view of their high
level of grading and additional benefits.
(iii) Any increase in the RDA payments to superintendents could
mean a claim for an increase across the board to the
remainder of the clerical staff of whom they form part.
One claim has in fact already been submitted and it
spreads the net to include two other departments
(Maintenance & Engineering and Operations Control) and
has been submitted by IAESA which represents the vast
majority of superintendents in the Company.
(iv) On the claim for parity with the technical supervisors,
the Company must refer to the report of the Special
Committee on Relativities, appointed by the Employer
Labour Conference in 1980, and which issued its findings
in October, 1981. Prior to this the tradesmen had a
relativity to clerks and operatives had a relativity to
tradesmen. These relativities were a source of
widespread and recurring dissension and industrial
disruption. In an effort to eliminate all of this the
Committee was set up and its report resulted in all
categories, including clerks, being paid to terminate
those arrangements. These arrangements were accepted by
all groups and as a result relativity claims in the
Company are not valid.
Claim (b) - increased time off for alleged lack of break
facilities during night duty
Union's arguments:
5. (a) At present the claimants have one day off following
seven nights' working to compensate for the
inconvenience caused by not being able to leave their
desks for meal breaks. This means that the job demands
create a necessity to remain available while others take
their breaks. Cumulatively, it means a loss of
approximately seven hours over the seven nights of their
roster. The Company, in providing the workers with one
day off after their night duties, is simply compensating
them on an hour for hour basis.
(b) The Court has recognised in previous recommendations
that this compensation should be at overtime rates
(LCR10126 refers). The claim therefore is for an
increase in the time off after the night duties, in line
with the position outlined and providing for two days
off.
(c) The claimants have committed themselves to taking their
annual leave entitlements at times other than during
their night duty periods. This is of great benefit to
the Company and does not apply to staff throughout the
Company generally. The Union believes that this
consideration should be taken into account when dealing
with the claim.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) The rotation of nights begins on Friday night at 2330
and ends on the following Friday morning at 0730. Each
staff member is entitled to two days off per week. In
normal circumstances this group of staff would be off
duty on Wednesday and Thursday prior to nights but at
their request this was reduced to Thursday only and the
day in lieu of Wednesday was carried forward to the
weekend following the completion of nights. This means
that the weekend following nights would be as follows -
resting on Friday and Saturday, resting in lieu of
previous week on Sunday and resting for the following
week on Monday and Tuesday. In addition to this the
claimants made the case that they were on-call during
their total night duty and as a result were not in a
position to get their meal break. At that time they
were granted an extra day off to compensate for that.
This argument is no longer valid as each night there is
an experienced ramp agent on duty with them who can fill
in during their break time which is a normal practice
throughout the Company.
(ii) Despite this it is not intended to withdraw that day at
present. However, the Company is now considering the
abolition of a number of functions in the airline
because of their high cost and low return and this is
one of the areas under examination. The whole night
staffing is being reviewed and this is already concluded
in the cargo department where superintendent coverage is
now no longer required.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the view that the difference in the night duties worked by the
Assistant Duty Managers and the regular night duties worked by
Technical Supervisors is no longer such as would warrant the
different rates paid for these duties.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties should agree
appropriate rates for the claimants with reference to the rates
and duties applicable to other supervisors with similar rosters.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
additional time off.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st August, 1987 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG ---------------
Deputy Chairman