LCR12154

Subject:
Claim for compensation for disturbance in the wood and plastic shop.

Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, regards it as a matter of regret that the claimants
resorted to a work stoppage in pursuance of their claim in breach
of existing procedures. This action made for difficulties in
resolving the dispute at local level. The Court accepts that
there was some degree of inconvenience caused by the refurbishment
operation and recommends that in order to settle the dispute both
parties should now negotiate locally on the level of compensation
that should apply in the particular circumstances of this case.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD88789 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12154

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67


PARTIES: AER LINGUS

and

UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS

SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for disturbance in the wood and plastic
shop.

BACKGROUND:
2. For the past year the Company has been involved in a major
refurbishment programme of its maintenance facilities and this
will continue for approximately two more years. The programme is
designed to improve working conditions and practices with a view
to increasing the throughput of work. Recently extensive
renovations have taken place in the wood and plastic shop. The
work which has been ongoing for some time, caused inconvenience
and discomfort to the workers, and necessitated their moving to
the middle of an aircraft hangar for a period. In view of the
adverse working conditions experienced the Union is seeking some
form of compensation and has indicated that another group within
the complex has already been compensated in similar circumstances.
The Company has rejected the claim, and as no agreement was
reached in discussions at local level the dispute was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 1st July,
1988. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th September,
1988 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 18th
October, 1988. A Court hearing took place on the 17th November,
1988.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1982 the staff compliment in the wood and plastic
shop has been increased by six extra personnel and this
brought about a situation of inadequate facilities such as
employees sharing work benches and equipment. This situation
led to inconvenience and sometimes friction between staff.


Following representations by the Union, the Company eventually
provided a temporary shop to accommodate the extra staff. The
shop was used (except briefly) until June, 1988. Conditions
were poor with draughts and rain leaking through the hangar
roof which sometimes flooded the work area. There were also
panels falling from the roof (as a result of rain damage)
excessive noise levels, fumes for over spray and exhaust
fumes. This area because of the lack of adequate roofing was
vulnerable to pilfering, and tools and equipment were taken.

2. The Company eventually decided to upgrade the main
workshop, and all staff were to be accommodated in this
facility. When work started progress was slow and because of
this, the Company decided to close this hangar and apply man
power to the work in hand for an earlier completion. This
decision is responsible to some extent for the situation which
was allowed to develop. Many projects were started and left
partly finished. As a result shop personnel were subjected to
much inconvenience. More recently the situation further
deteriorated as many jobs were worked on together such as
plumbing, electrical, windows, and no one was responsible for
the maintenance of a safe and clean environment, while work
was progressing. This resulted in materials, off-cuts, and
equipment being strewn across the shop floor.

3. Shop staff were expected to carry out their normal duties
and were denied reasonable accommodation elsewhere to allow
free access in the shop area so that work could progress in a
more orderly manner. Such were the working conditions that
after representations to the Company the staff were moved to
the middle of the hangar floor. While recognising that the
workshop has improved considerably, staff were still expected
to endure workers, tools and equipment, in direct proximity to
their place of work.

4. In the circumstances the Union feels that it is justified
in seeking some form of compensation as has been the case in
similar circumstances elsewhere in the Company. For example a
similar situation arose in relation to alterations in another
workshop area in the complex and staff were compensated by the
granting of five additional days leave on a once off basis
agreed at local level. The Union contends that this dispute
could be resolved in the same way. This Union's claim is more
justified than that of the other workers mentioned, as the
alterations in the other workshop were taking place on the
floor outside this shop and not in the shop itself. The Union
requested that the Company allow it to negotiate this claim at
local level, as in the other workshop situation, but the
Company refused the request.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The major programme of upgrading facilities in the
maintenance and engineering department will protect and
consolidate the jobs of 1500 people currently employed and
will create the possibility of further future employment. So
far #3 million has been approved for expenditure (details
supplied to the Court) and work will continue for a further
eighteen months to two years. Specifically, #110,000 was
allocated to the wood plastic shop to purchase equipment,
upgrade facilities and improve the environment.

2. Within the constraints of inconvenience caused by such a
major refurbishment programme, management have endeavoured to
minimise the discomfort involved for staff members. When the
most intensive work was under way in the wood plastic shop for
three days from 23rd June, equipment and benches were provided
in the main hangar area. It should be noted that it is a
normal part of everyday operation for the tradesmen involved
to work in the hangar, in fact a significant part of their
working time is spent there.

3. Unofficial meetings were held by the staff, without
management permission, (in breach of the Aircraft Tradesmen's
Agreement) which resulted in a refusal to carry out any work
until their claim for compensation was met. The Union and
Company held meetings to try to resolve the difficulty and
facilitate a return to work. In any situation where major
improvements are taking place, inconvenience is an inherent
part of the process. In this instance every effort was made
to keep inconvenience to a minimum. Specifically, when the
refurbishment was at its height, staff were relocated from the
shop into the main hangar area.

4. The upgrading of the facilities in the wood plastic shop
is only a small part of a very large refurbishment programme
that has been ongoing for some time and will continue well
into the future. If compensation had been conceded other
groups of workers would immediately have lodged similar
claims. The pay and conditions of craft workers in the
Company are among the best available in the country and the
commercial environment within which the Company operates means
that the airline depends on being able to match the costs of
existing and potential competitors. In this context the
Company feels that it is unwise to concede additional
peripheral costs, to pay a levy on improvements which are
designed to help it become more competitive, while improving
working conditions.


RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, regards it as a matter of regret that the claimants
resorted to a work stoppage in pursuance of their claim in breach
of existing procedures. This action made for difficulties in
resolving the dispute at local level. The Court accepts that
there was some degree of inconvenience caused by the refurbishment
operation and recommends that in order to settle the dispute both
parties should now negotiate locally on the level of compensation
that should apply in the particular circumstances of this case.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
9th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.