Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87854 Case Number: LCR11641 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation for one person operation of boilerhouse duties during the summer.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company's offer is fair and
reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87854 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11641
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for one person operation of boilerhouse
duties during the summer.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's boilerhouse operation at Dublin Airport involves
six boilermen and five trimmers giving cover on a 24 hour basis
(one boilerman and one trimmer per shift with a boilerman spare to
cover absenteeism, holidays etc.). The claim arises from a
decision by Management to introduce a one-person boiler operation
during the summer months (period to be variable by virtue of the
prevailing weather conditions). The workers concerned objected to
this proposal on the grounds of personal security, personal safety
and loss of earnings. In the matters of security and safety the
Company agreed to engage an engineer from the Institute for
Industrial Research and Standards to assess these factors in an
attempt to allay any fears the workers might have. The IIRS
report concluded that the boilerhouse was safe and secure for one
person duties. This was unacceptable to the Union which claimed
that the engineer concerned extended his brief by making
recommendations of modifications required. Local level
discussions failed to resolve the dispute and on the 20th August,
1987, the Union referred the matter to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. At conciliation, the Company's position was
stated as agreeing to discuss only the issue of compensation. It
offered the trimmers #1,500 each and the boilermen #750 each, for
losses other than overtime. It was not prepared to compensate for
loss of overtime. The Union however, rejected this and sought
#2,000 per trimmer and #1,000 per boilerman. As no progress could
be made the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th
November, 1987. A Court investigation was held on the 3rd
December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's considered view that the Company should
not have proceeded to introduce the one-person operation
without agreement. The workers concerned were forced to work
in an environment which was found to be unsafe by an
independent assessor. This is borne out by the independent
assessor's report, where he saw fit to recommend
modifications to the machinery.
2. There are a number of financial elements to be considered
in the context of the proposal to operate a one-person
system. These are mainly additional responsibilities on the
boilerman in operating on his own, the use of the radio for
maintaining a link with the security force at the airport,
unquantifiable loss of earnings, loss of shift pay for
trimmers, loss of rostered duty allowances (RDAs) and the
duration of loss. There are further hidden losses which
cannot be quantified as these are dependent on levels of
absenteeism, annual leave cover etc.
3. The parties could not agree a basis on which losses could
be calculated although the figures provided by the Company
clearly demonstrated a reduced level of earnings between the
years 1986/87 (details supplied to the Court). The figures
produce an average of #263.54 loss of overtime. These
figures, when added to the Company's offer of #1,500 and
#750, come to within a few pounds of the difference between
what the Company offered and what is being sought and should
make it quite easy for the Court to recommend the Union's
figure in respect of loss of shift, RDA's and Bank holidays.
4. There are other elements to be taken into account in this
matter, eg. stress, increased productivity, disturbance and
flexibility. Although it is difficult to quantify these, in
a situation where the Company is making record profits, it
would not be unreasonable to ask the Court to recommend an
extra #1,000 per man as recompense for same.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The duration of the loss of shift pay, bank holiday pay
etc. depends on climatic conditions (how long the mild
weather lasts). This period would certainly not exceed five
months. The average loss of earnings for the trimmers for
five months is #1,138 each. The Company therefore believes
that a payment of #1,500 to each trimmer (and 50% of this to
each boilerman) is more than fair. This ratio of
compensation to loss of shift pay has already been accepted
by the Union for other staff working in the Company.
2. While the Company is satisfied to recommend the above
payment it also has to be mindful of the overall state of
national finances and the restrictions that this imposes.
3. The overtime in question is unscheduled, unplanned and
purely fortuitous from the staff viewpoint. It is not
Company policy to compensate for loss of overtime of this
nature, i.e. overtime that was not guaranteed.
4. There is no guaranteed overtime in the boilerhouse, nor
indeed is there any guarantee that unplanned overtime will
not arise in the jobs that staff will be assigned to during
the 'non-heating' period. A loss of overtime cannot be
established and in any event there is no justification for
compensation for any loss of overtime that was not
guaranteed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company's offer is fair and
reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th January, 1988 Evelyn Owens
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman