Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8824 Case Number: LCR11711 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND;MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of 18 craftsmen in the Services Department of Dublin Airport for parity of annual leave rostered duty allowance (RDA), payment with tradesmen employed in the Maintenance and Engineering Production Department.
Recommendation:
5. In the Court's view it would be preferable for the future if
the Rostered Duty Allowance (RDA) was calculated by reference to
the average of shift earnings across both Departments. The Court
recommends that this be implemented by negotiation at the time of
the next increase in the RDA.
In addition to the implementation of the offer made by the
Company, from the date on which it was offered, each of the
claimants should be paid #200 or five lieu days.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8824 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11711
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND
MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 18 craftsmen in the Services Department of
Dublin Airport for parity of annual leave rostered duty allowance
(RDA), payment with tradesmen employed in the Maintenance and
Engineering Production Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions maintain that under an agreement negotiated between
1966/67, parity of annual leave RDA payments existed between the
two groups up to 1973/74. The Unions first became aware of the
disparity in 1975/76 and sought to have it rectified. No
concerted effort was made to deal with the issue until 1984.
Following a meeting in June of that year, the Company wrote to the
Union rejecting the claim. However, it admitted that there was an
error in calculating the proper annual leave RDA and offered 40p
per day to correct this. This was rejected by the claimants.
Further local level discussions throughout 1986 and 1987 failed to
resolve the dispute (the Company had offered to increase the 40p
offer to 47p in 1987 but this was rejected) and on the 4th
September, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference on the 2nd
November (earliest suitable date) was adjourned to allow the
parties clarify the position regarding the two agreements covering
Skilled Aircraft Tradesman and Skilled Tradesmen.
On the 8th January, 1988, the Unions requested that the matter be
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Company was agreeable to this and a Court hearing took place
on the 8th February, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Services Tradesmen work a two-cycle, seven day shift,
including weekends and all bank holidays (expect Christmas
Day), yet other Aer Lingus tradesmen who work a two-cycle five
day shift, excluding weekends and bank holidays, are paid the
full annual leave allowance.
2. At the conciliation conference a situation emerged
whereby the existence of two separate Tradesmens' Agreements
was considered a factor in resolving the dispute. It is a
documented fact that there exists an agreement specifically
referring to "aircraft tradesmen" and another agreement
specifically referring to "tradesmen other than aircraft
tradesmen". These are the original negotiated agreements of
1966/'67 and contain the salary scales, rostered duty
allowances and overtime rates which existed at that time.
Examination of both documents will show that these rates are
exactly the same for all tradesmen in Aer Lingus.
3. Reference to both documents will show the generalised
conditions resulting in the annual leave allowance shown. All
money amounts, salary scale points, methods of progression are
specifically and particularly agreed (details supplied to the
Court). The only way for the RDA to change is that caused by
the application of percentage increases as applied to salary.
Thus, the Company, by changing the allowance payable to
services tradesmen, for any reason other than the one
contained in the agreement of 1966/'67, is in major breach of
this long-standing, binding agreement.
4. The Unions' claim is for the restoration of the annual
leave rostered duty allowance to the level negotiated between
the Company and the Unions in 1966 and for it to be increased
by the application of percentage increases as applied to
salary. This will restore the allowance to the same level as
paid to all other tradesmen on shift in the Company. The
Unions are also claiming full retrospection, back to the last
traceable date when the proper amount was paid, but are
prepared to negotiate on this aspect of the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The group of workers covered by this claim enjoy pay and
conditions that compare very favourably with workers in
similar positions in other companies in Ireland. Average
gross earnings prior to the 26th Round for Skilled Tradesmen
in the financial year 1986/87 were #13,325, and for
Supervisors were #17,319. The tradesmens' earnings would have
been greater except for their involvement in an eight week
trade dispute.
2. In 1967 when the Company entered into the Agreement it
was a joint agreement on behalf of Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta.
At that time electricians in Aer Rianta worked a roster that
included night duties, other staff in Aer Rianta and Aer
Lingus worked a two shift cycle only. The rotation of that
shift, because it included night work, probably called for an
allowance close to that for Aer Lingus production workers.
Rather than have "pence" differentials the likelihood is that
the Aer Lingus rate was conceded to the Electricians and in
consequence applied elsewhere. When the Air Companies Act,
1966, was fully implemented in subsequent years and the
Maintenance Services Unit established, appropriate rates
covering annual leave payments were correctly calculated so as
to provide the averaged flat daily allowance for courses and
annual leave. When the pay terms of the Agreement were
renewed in 1969, the agreements were not reprinted and the
earliest documentation now available that illustrates the
difference is from 1972. This differential has been
maintained over the intervening years.
3. When a claim was pursued in 1984, and in the absence of
complete records, the Company made an offer based on updating
the averaging clause in the Skilled Tradesmen' Agreement.
This offer was not taken up. Again, in 1987 the Company
offered the 1984 figure plus intervening increases, but this
too was rejected.
4. It should be noted that to accede to this claim could
have wide repercussions. There are currently 260 Aircraft
Tradesmen and 80 Aircraft Technical Supervisors in the
Maintenance and Engineering Department on shift, many of them
represented by the same Unions.
5. In isolation, any one group may be able to take one
factor and make a case based on this factor compared to other
staff even though their own overall pay may be excellent.
However, the cumulative effects of dealing with such factors
in isolation can lead to unreasonable and unsustainable wage
costs. Over recent years Aer Lingus has succeeded in
improving its finances, though not sufficiently to meet all
the fleet replacement needs facing into the 1990's. What has
changed, in recent times, has been the level of competition
facing the Company in all its main markets. At the present,
and in the future, Aer Lingus must meet increasing competition
from low cost airlines, both international and domestic.
These airlines have pay rates and costs far below those of the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the Court's view it would be preferable for the future if
the Rostered Duty Allowance (RDA) was calculated by reference to
the average of shift earnings across both Departments. The Court
recommends that this be implemented by negotiation at the time of
the next increase in the RDA.
In addition to the implementation of the offer made by the
Company, from the date on which it was offered, each of the
claimants should be paid #200 or five lieu days.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
25th February, 1988 ----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman