Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88339 Case Number: LCR11932 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Proposal by the Company for the introduction of 20 hour premises cleaners.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends concession of the Company's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88339 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11932
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Proposal by the Company for the introduction of 20 hour
premises cleaners.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1968 both Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus were part of a
common corporate structure, with all operative, crafts and
clerical staff employed by Aer Lingus. In 1968 they separated to
form two distinct companies. A parity arrangement for the workers
in this Company with those in Aer Lingus was agreed at the time of
the separation. In August, 1987, agreement was reached on a
re-organisation of the office and toilet cleaners in Aer Lingus.
This provided for the recruitment of new cleaners at 20 hours per
week (5 x 4) instead of 30 hours (5 x 6) which had been the
previous arrangement. This Company subsequently proposed to
employ cleaners on a 20 hour week on the basis of the parity
arrangement which exists between the two companies. This was
rejected by the Union on the basis that the parity relationship
does not apply to such a condition of employment and on 28th
March, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 25th
April, 1988, at which agreement could not be reached and on 6th
May, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 16th June, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the years there have been a number of changes in the
pay and conditions of cleaners in the Company based on the
parity relationship. These included basic pay increases, off
scale special payments conceded in Aer Lingus and the
reduction of the working week to a meal inclusive rather than
meal exclusive basis. The Company is satisfied that the
reduction of the working week from 30 to 20 hours is not only
appropriate to, but is typical of, matters covered by the
parity relationship. The guarantee to maintain parity is in
no way conditional on applying only to those matters that the
Union wishes to claim. In August/September, 1987, the Union
submitted two claims which clearly arise out of the parity
relationship (details supplied to the Court).
2. Cleaners in Aer Lingus are responsible for cleaning
buildings owned and operated by Aer Lingus. The cleaners
concerned here are responsible for cleaning buildings owned
by this Company, however a number of these have been
rented/leased to Aer Lingus. It is ridiculous that Aer
Lingus buildings only require 20 hour attendance while this
Company must use 30 hour cleaners although a large proportion
of its buildings are occupied by Aer Lingus.
3. It has been suggested by the Union that the 20 hour
agreement in Aer Lingus will be terminated in the near
future. However it has been due to the Union's opposition
that the Company has been unable to avail of employing 20
hour cleaners since September, 1987. The Company would
therefore expect to be able to avail of employing 20 hour
cleaners on a similar basis and to consider any grounds for
terminating this practice in the light of the parity
relationship.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1968 this Company undertook to maintain parity of
working conditions for workers in this Company relative to
their counterparts in Aer Lingus. On each occasion that a
change related to parity has occurred in Aer Lingus, staff
representatives have negotiated its application to this
Company. Therefore, the parity that exists is an entitlement
for the workers for their protection and does not operate in
reverse. The Company is not entitled to claim a worsening in
working conditions on this basis.
2. In any event the parity relationship does not apply to
such a condition of employment. The parity applies to basic
working conditions such as pay, shift, overtime,
superannuation, rostering and other fundamental conditions or
issues covered by comprehensive agreements. There are many
local arrangements in Aer Lingus regarding the organisation
or pattern of work which would be highly beneficial to
workers in this Company, however it is recognised that
separate developments on non-fundamental issues must take
place taking account of different conditions.
3. The new arrangement for cleaners in Aer Lingus is
undesirable and was only agreed to on the basis that it was
preferable to the introduction of contract cleaners. In
addition it was recognised that such working conditions and
remuneration were not viable in the long term and it was
agreed that workers recruited on a 20 hour basis would
transfer, on average after not more than 2 years, to other
full-time positions in Aer Lingus. In any event it is
expected that 20 hours employment will shortly cease to exist
in Aer Lingus. There is no operational or commercial
justification for this Company to seek to exploit the
availability of labour on these conditions, particularly as
the Company would not be able to absorb the workers into the
full-time workforce within the 2 year time span.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends concession of the Company's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of thee Labour Court
4th July, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman