Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87643 Case Number: LCR11459 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU;FWUI |
Claim, on behalf of approximately 230 operatives, for payment for public holidays lost during an industrial dispute.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that a case has not been established by
the Unions. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession
of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87643 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11459
CD871078 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11459
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO. 17 BRANCH)
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND (NO. 12 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately 230 operatives, for payment
for public holidays lost during an industrial dispute.
Background:
2. In December, 1986, and January, 1987, an official dispute
occurred in the Company involving various craft unions. The
operative grades also became involved when they were asked to take
instructions from a Management taskforce who were replacing the
striking tradesmen. Strike notice was served to take effect from
23:59 hours on the 26th December, 1986, but this was deferred
pending a Labour Court hearing. Following a Court hearing on the
30th December, 1986, LCR10906 was issued which read as follows -
"The Court notes that the claim does not include those members
who took industrial action on 12th December and following
days and subsequently resumed work.
The Court finds that there are two categories of employees in
the claim and that their cases require separate
consideration.
The first category consists of those members of the Unions
who specifically refused to perform certain tasks which were
part of their normal duties in pursuance of the policy of the
Unions as set out in the letter of 4th December. The Court
finds that these employees were removed from the payroll
because they were engaging in industrial action in support of
this policy and therefore does not recommend that the Company
be required to pay their wages for the period of their
dispute.
The second category consists of employees who were removed
from the payroll by the Company on the basis that they were
expected to refuse to carry out management instructions
because of the Unions' policy. The Court does not consider
that these employees should have been removed from the
payroll in advance of an actual refusal to perform their
normal duties and therefore recommends that they be paid
for the period of their removal".
3. A series of local level meetings took place regarding the
implementation of the recommendation as both sides had different
interpretations of its provisions. It was finally agreed that the
operatives affected would all be treated equally and that a lump
sum of #400 per person would be paid. At the final meeting
between the parties, the Unions sought payment for the
Company/public holidays which occurred during the dispute. This
was rejected by Management which was of the view that this was
compensated for by the #400 payment. As neither side could agree
on their interpretation/recollection of whether or not the #400
was in full and final settlement of all claims arising, the Unions
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No progress could be made at a conciliation conference
held on the 18th August, 1987, (earliest date suitable to the
parties) and on the 24th August the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 21st September, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
4. (a) Public holiday entitlements were not provided for when
the lump sum settlement was offered and accepted.
(b) The Union side is adamant that at the final meetings
on the operative dispute in January last, the Company
indicated that the public holiday issue would be dealt
with later.
(c) Staff in the second category as designated in LCR10906
have a clear entitlement to full pay including full
payment for public holidays. Even if one accepts that
this entitlement is diluted by extending it to those
in the first category, there must nevertheless remain
some entitlement to a proportion of the public
holiday pay.
(d) At the conciliation conference the Company confirmed
that tradesmen who were on strike over the same period
received two days in lieu of the public holidays. It
therefore follows that this should also be given to
the claimants.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Labour Court Recommendation No. 10906 was issued on
the 2nd January, 1987. Aer Lingus accepted the terms
of this Recommendation at a cost of #93,600 + #11,540
Company PRSI paid out to people who were not working.
The Company is satisfied that the implementation
includes all monies due to these workers under the
terms of the recommendation. The various categories
of workers were amalgamated at the request of the
Unions and all received #400 each.
(b) Acceptance of this recommendation was only agreed
after very serious consideration by Management as, for
the first time, the Company agreed to pay people who
refused to work. This acceptance overturned an
uncompromising long established practice of refusing
to pay people who were not working.
(c) The Company cannot accept the Unions' contention that
staff who were nowhere near Dublin Airport on the days
in question or staff who did come to the airport but
were not available for work should be in receipt of
additional Bank Holiday pay.
/....
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that a case has not been established by
the Unions. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession
of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman