Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87398 Case Number: LCR11488 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - ITGWU;INPDTU, UCATT, NEETU, EETPU;ETU, FWUI, PTU, UPASTI, IUWWM |
Claim for the restoration of payment of travel subsidy to new employees.
Recommendation:
7. Having regard to previous recommendations and the conditions
applicable elsewhere in the organisation, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87398 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11488
D85529 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11488
Parties: AER RIANTA
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
IRISH NATIONAL PAINTERS' AND DECORATORS' TRADE UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PLUMBING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND ALLIED TRADES SOCIETY OF IRELAND
NATIONAL UNION OF WOODWORKS AND WOODCUTTING MACHINISTS
Subject:
1. Claim for the restoration of payment of travel subsidy to new
employees.
Background:
2. The claim concerns 27 workers employed by the Company at
Shannon Airport since 1983. The Unions are claiming that these
workers should be paid a travel subsidy in line with the subsidy
which is paid to workers employed by the Company prior to 1983.
3. The subsidy, which was paid since the Airport was set-up, was
eliminated in 1983 for all new workers. It is still paid to most
workers who were first employed before 1983 and who live more than
five miles from the Airport. At present the subsidy is subject
to a maximum of #10 per week which is approximately equivalent to
half the bus fare to either Limerick or Ennis. The Unions are
claiming that the workers concerned be paid the travel subsidy.
The Company rejects the claim.
4. Similar claims were investigated by the Labour Court in 1983
and 1985 (Labour Court Recommendation No. 7415 and 9830 refer).
On both those occasions the Court did not recommend concession of
the claim. The Unions lodged the present claims in 1985. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 12th
September, 1985 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Further local discussions took place
after the referral to the conciliation service. On 23rd October,
1986 a conciliation conference was held but no agreement was
reached. The parties had more local discussions but on 18th May,
1987 the case was referred to the Labour Court. A Court hearing
was held on 29th September, 1987 in Limerick.
Unions' arguments:
5. (i) Over the years the workers' rates of pay and conditions
of employment have been dictated by a direct
relationship that exists between the Company and Aer
Lingus. In Labour Court Recommendation NO. 2645 in
1971 the Court recommended the acceptance of the same
rates of pay and conditions of employment as in Aer
Lingus. The Court further recommended that if the
Company could not remove the disparity in travel
concessions it should grant an equivalent value. In
the 25th and 26th wage round claims the Court also
recommended that the Company's workers should receive
the same increases as Aer Lingus workers. Because of
these clearly defined relativities the Company should
not have interfered with the travel subsidy without the
agreement of the negotiating Unions. Since 1981 new
employees in Aer Lingus at Shannon have received the
travel subsidy. The Unions must insist that in order
to retain the agreed relativity between the two
companies, the new employees in the Company should also
have received a similar amount.
(ii) In Labour Court Recommendation No. 9436 in 1984 in
respect of new executive workers in S.F.A.D.C.O. the
Court recommended that:
"The Company approach in negotiating what are in
effect different terms of employment for the new
employees concerned, grades for which the Union
already negotiates was inappropriate."
The Court went on to recommend that the meal allowances
which were withheld from the new employees should be
extended to them from their date of commencement.
(iii) All the custom and practice of good industrial
relations practices and Labour Court precedents are in
favour of the workers concerned.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company is the largest individual employer in the
area, employing over 1,000 workers during the peak
season. Therefore the cost of subsidising travel to
and from work is substantial, particularly during a
recession when every effort is being made to improve
the Company's financial situation for the future.
(b) The original concept of granting staff a transport
subsidy was introduced in the 1940's for particular
circumstances which obtained then and which clearly are
no longer appropriate or relevant.
(c) Travel subsidies had also applied at Dublin and Cork
airports up to 1970 but these were discontinued for all
new entrants and bought out from the remainder of the
staff.
(d) Because of the effects of the recession and with
increased alternatives available from other airports
particularly, in relation to the transit airlines
business Shannon must develop appropriate competitive
cost structures if it is to survive at it's existing
level of activity and to maintain reasonable employment
levels. The Company's action in relation to
elimination of transport subsidies was motivated for
these reasons.
(e) The new entrants at Shannon enjoy identical conditions
with their counterparts at Dublin, Cork and Head Office
in terms of pay, annual leave, overtime rates, pension
arrangements and concession on air travel. In these
circumstances it was accepted that the existing staff
should be allowed retain the travel allowance on a
personal basis for the remainder of their employment at
Shannon Airport, while new staff at Shannon would be
treated similarly to their colleagues at the other
locations. It should be noted that almost 35% of
permanent staff with transport subsidies employed at
Shannon Airport have voluntarily surrendered their
subsidies since the Company launched a buy out scheme
in 1984.
(f) A recent decision of the Limerick office of the
Inspector of Taxes to include transport subsidies as
Benefits-in-Kind subject to Income Tax and Pay Related
Social Insurance deductions introduced a further
additional cost to the organisation.
(g) New staff joining the Company do so in the knowledge
they must travel to their place of employment to
fulfill their contract of employment. If staff decided
to reside within easy reach of the airport or some
considerable distance from the airport it is a matter
of their own choice and transport costs incurred by the
individual is not a matter for management. This is
true of staff at Dublin and Cork airports as well as at
Shannon.
(h) The arguments put forward by the Company in relation to
Recommendations No. 7415 and 9830 appear to have been
accepted by the Labour Court as the claims were not
conceded. Those arguments are still valid.