Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88180 Case Number: LCR11797 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 100 workers in the commercial areas of Dublin Airport for a work-study exercise to include internal relativities.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances in this case, in which the
parties are in fundamental disagreement as to the objectives of
the study, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88180 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11797
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 100 workers in
the commercial areas of Dublin Airport for a work-study exercise
to include internal relativities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned work in the commercial areas of Dublin
Airport, which consist of the Duty Free Shop, the Tax Free Shop
and the stores attaching to both. In late 1986, the Union wrote
to the Company seeking to bring in an Irish Congress of Trade
Unions (I.C.T.U.) representative to carry out a work-study
exercise. This was not acceptable to the Company who proposed to
have a study carried out by its Organisational Development Unit
(O.D.U.), examining duties and responsibilities of the workers
relative to their 'down-town' counterparts. This in turn was
unacceptable to the Union and on 29th May, 1987, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a
conciliation conference held on the 25th August, 1987, the Union
agreed to wait until the Company completed its own O.D.U. study
and examine the findings before deciding to pursue the case for an
I.C.T.U. study. The O.D.U. study was completed and presented to
the Union in October, 1987. The report was unacceptable to the
Union, who on 4th November, 1987, wrote to the Company requesting
permission for its own nominee to carry out a work study
examination. The Company was not satisfied with the basis for the
Union's work-study exercise, which was to entail a comparison of
internal pay rates, and the matter was referred back to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. As agreement could not
be reached at a further conciliation conference held on 1st
February, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
25th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has been attempting to secure permission to
carry out a work-study exercise for over one and a half years
but has been frustrated by the Company. If the Union serves a
claim on the Company as a result of the work-study exercise,
it is accepted the Company may counter the claim with all the
arguments available. It is unreasonable to prevent the Union
from even studying the levels of responsibility and
remuneration in Dublin Airport.
3. 2. The Company's own O.D.U. study is an internal management
exercise with which the Union was asked to co-operate. The
Union did so, however, the Union did not request the study and
believes its findings do not resolve the issue concerned.
3. The main objective of the work-study exercise is to
establish if, as a result of 'down-town' relativity, the rates
of the workers concerned are seriously out of line with other
airport staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that the Union is attempting to
establish a basis to create an internal relativity between
commercial grades and other Company staff. This is totally
unacceptable to the Company. Internal relativities were
eliminated in 1981, following the acceptance of the report of
a Special Committee on Relativities. Having removed internal
pay relativities for other categories of staff, it is
inconceivable for the Company to agree to a work-study
exercise based on an intent to support the establishment of
new internal pay relationships.
2. In their submission to the Labour Court on the 23rd Pay
Round, the Union acknowledged that the traditional comparisons
for the workers concerned are the 'down-town' stores.
Furthermore in dealing with the 23rd Pay Round claim, the
Court accepted that there were more favourable rates paid to
the workers concerned, compared to those in the distributive
trade generally.
3. Given the background and stated purpose of the work-study
exercise, the Company can see no grounds for allowing it to
take place on either Company time or premises. Nonetheless,
the Company will co-operate with the Union's work-study expert
by supplying him with information concerning pay and
conditions.
4. The Company is prepared to enter into discussions, in the
traditional manner, with the Union. However, the Company
believes that the acceptance or non-acceptance of a work-study
exercise being conducted, particularly against the background
of this case, is at any time a matter to be decided upon
solely at the Company's discretion.