Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88228 Case Number: LCR11875 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of 7 workers for retrospection and assimilation on the Chef's scale.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the information before it the Court is
satisfied that the workers concerned applied for and accepted work
which was graded at a lower rank than that of chef within a
grading structure that is particular to Aer Lingus. The fact that
at the time most of them were capable of performing the higher
graded functions does not support the Union's claim for
retrospective assimilation on to the higher grade, or any
different form of assimilation on to that grade than is common
practice in the Company.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88228 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11875
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 7 workers for retrospection and
assimilation on the Chef's scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned were originally recruited as cooks and
were upgraded to chefs on 23rd June, 1987, following the
re-organisation of canteen facilities and the introduction of new
equipment into the Head Office staff restaurant. The Union
claimed that the workers concerned should be given retrospection
to their date of entry and credit for previous service on the new
scale. This was rejected by the Company and on 1st May, 1987 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 24th and 31st July,
1987 and 7th March, 1988 at which agreement could not be reached
and on 23rd March, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 28th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1971, the Union and Company signed a Catering Grades
Agreement (details supplied to the Court). All the workers
concerned were qualified chefs when employed by the Company
and there is no provision in the 1971 agreement to pay the
cooks rate of pay to fully qualified chefs. The workers
relieved the supervisory chef when necessary and obviously had
the required skills for this job. The Company has argued that
the Chefs in the Flight Kitchen prepare higher quality food
than those in the canteens where these workers operated.
However, the same skills are required regardless of the food
being prepared and this has been confirmed to the Union
(details supplied to the Court). The workers should therefore
have been paid the Chef's rate
2. The Company has had the professional skills of these
workers available to them since they took up employment. A
formal claim for upgrading from cooks to chefs was made in
November, 1985, however prior to this several attempts were
made to have the issue cleared up. It is only reasonable that
the workers receive full retrospection.
3. 3. Although the workers concerned have service in the Company
ranging from 4 to 14 years they have been placed on the lower
points of the Chef's salary scale. As the workers were graded
incorrectly in the first place, they should be given credit
for their service and placed on the point of the Chef's salary
scale commensurate with their service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to the introduction of the vending service the
Company employed cooks in the staff restaurants and advertised
accordingly. These workers were employed between 1974 and
1984. Management made the distinction between cooks and chefs
as is clear from the different qualifications outlined in
advertisements for chefs in 1984 and cooks in 1979 (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The work in the Flight Kitchen requires skill, training,
flair, experience and flexibility. In the staff restaurants
however, each cook carries out one function only and the work
is not the same as is reflected in the rates of pay. The
workers concerned were originally employed as cooks and
therefore the argument that they can carry out the work of
Chefs is irrelevant as they were not required to carry out
Chef's tasks until 1987 and were paid in accordance with their
duties up until then. When their work altered the grades were
changed and the workers were promoted and paid accordingly.
Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect the Company to
concede a claim for retrospection.
3. The system in the Company for promotion cases has been in
existence for many years. This provides for the movement of
workers either on to the minimum of the promotional grade or
to the next higher increment on the new scale above the
previous rate of pay. The Company could not consider giving
the workers recognition for previous service and there would
be serious knock-on effects from such a concession.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the information before it the Court is
satisfied that the workers concerned applied for and accepted work
which was graded at a lower rank than that of chef within a
grading structure that is particular to Aer Lingus. The fact that
at the time most of them were capable of performing the higher
graded functions does not support the Union's claim for
retrospective assimilation on to the higher grade, or any
different form of assimilation on to that grade than is common
practice in the Company.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
2nd May, 1988 Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.