Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87598 Case Number: LCR11401 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU |
Claim for compensation on behalf of 24 workers employed at Cork Airport for loss of earnings due to change in roster.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not find any justification for the granting of
compensation in this case and accordingly does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87598 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11401
CC87506 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11401
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation on behalf of 24 workers employed at
Cork Airport for loss of earnings due to change in roster.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are general operatives who clean and
load planes at their station. Since the mid 1970's Cork Airport
has operated a roster which finishes after midnight and because of
the late finishing the workers who worked the shift received a
night supplement of #5.65 per shift. From November, 1986 the
Company changed the roster resulting in the late shift finishing
before midnight and accordingly the payment of #5.65 ceased. The
later shift was reintroduced for the summer season. It is
probable that the future pattern will be a roster finishing before
midnight for 5 months of the year and after midnight for 7 months.
The Union claimed compensation for loss of earnings (estimated by
the Union to be in excess of #620 a year). The Company rejected
the claim and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on 24th March, 1987. A conciliation
conference was held on 19th May, 1987. As a resolution was not
possible both parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Cork on 25th August, 1987, a date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned have over the years become
accustomed to this payment and have based their
commitments on it. Now they find that they have
suffered a major deduction in their take home pay.
(b) The workers have worked the new roster to show goodwill
despite the loss suffered. The workers are and have
been prepared for change. However when that change
involves a considerable loss of earnings, it is only
right that the workers be compensated to cushion them
against the loss.
(c) The proposed new roster is from 3 pm to 11 pm and this
does not qualify for the night duty allowance although
should they be required to be available after finishing
time they would be expected to stay.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The night duty allowance is paid in addition to the
shift premium to workers who are required to be on duty
between midnight and 7 am. The payment is made
specifically to compensate for working at these hours.
The same principal is used for all workers employed by
the Company.
(ii) There is now no requirement to bring in workers until
this late hour, and the Company feel there is no
obligation to pay compensation. If workers are
required to remain on duty after their shift has
finished they are payed at the appropriate overtime
rate (T.50 to midnight; 2T after midnight).
(iii) Concession of the claim would restrict the Company's
freedom to change rosters as has been the practice
heretofore with a resultant serious drop in
productivity.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not find any justification for the granting of
compensation in this case and accordingly does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
9th September, 1987.
M.D./J.C.