Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88756 Case Number: LCR12136 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for the payment of a meal allowance when working overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions by the parties the Court
does not consider that a claim for the extension of conditions
informally arranged outside the terms of the national agreement
for Aer Lingus can be sustained. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88756 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12136
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the payment of a meal allowance when
working overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned in this claim are employed as members of
the Airport Police Fire Service. There are approximately 100
workers involved. The Union on behalf of the workers, sought the
payment of a meal allowance to the firemen when they were required
to work overtime at short notice. In support of its claim the
Union cited the established relativity with operatives in Aer
Lingus, and claimed that a meal allowance is paid at Shannon when
overtime is worked at short notice. The Company rejected the
claim on the grounds that it was not included in the terms of the
1971 comprehensive agreement made between the Company and the
Union. Agreement could not be reached at local level and on 12th
May, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 14th
July, 1988. No agreement was reached and on 10th October, 1988,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Limerick on 9th
November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1968 Aer Rianta agreed to maintain parity of working
conditions with Aer Lingus for the operative grades. The
Airport Police Fire Service are part of the operative grade
structure and are therefore entitled to this relativity. On
every occasion that a change took place in the conditions of
employment of Aer Lingus, a similar change was negotiated on a
relativity basis with Aer Rianta.
2. In 1980 Aer Lingus (Shannon) started to pay an allowance
for overtime worked at short notice. This has since been
increased in January, 1981. This did not come to the Union's
notice until early in 1988, which is why the claim is now
being made. There is a clearly defined and accepted
relativity with Aer Lingus operatives. Given that they are
paid a meal allowance there is no justifiable reason why it
should not be paid to members of the Airport Police Fire
Service with the appropriate retrospection.
3. Because of the nature of the work and also the minimum
manning levels on each shift, the working of overtime at short
notice is very necessary. Staff come to work prepared for an
eight hour or nine hour shift, and if requested to work
overtime they have to make arrangements for a meal. This
involves going to the restaurant where prices are high. Part
of the overtime earnings must go to meet this cost, which in
the Union's view is not logical. In the light of all of the
above the Union requests the Court to rule in its favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Conditions of employment for all Company staff in the
Airport Police/Fire Service are as set out in the 1971
comprehensive agreement. Article seven of this agreement sets
out the conditions and compensation terms which apply
throughout the Company in relation to overtime working. The
Union has re-affirmed its commitment to the terms of this
agreement in subsequent wage rounds. There is no agreement on
the payment of a meal allowance during overtime working.
(Details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company's conditions of employment, salary scales,
privileges etc, have up to the present related directly to
conditions established in Aer Lingus. It is not Aer Lingus
policy to pay a meal allowance to staff working overtime
(details supplied to the Court). Aer Rianta has not conceded
a meals allowance to staff on overtime in any sphere of its
activities either in Dublin, Shannon, or Cork Airports. The
Company considers that terms relating to overtime working in
the Airport Police Fire Service are of such generous
proportions that they adequately compensate for the hours
worked and for any disruption incurred by the workers.
Additionally the basic rates of pay and shift premium
applicable to this category of employee have been influenced
by the operational requirements of the work, which from time
to time requires overtime working. Implicit in the basic
salary scales is a productivity element.
3. Under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery the
Company is not permitted to get involved in cost increasing
claims such as the one presented by the Union.
4. There are some 1500 staff in the Company in categories
where overtime applies. Many are in areas where disruptions
can give rise to unforeseen requirements at short notice. The
provision of a meal allowance/voucher does not apply elsewhere
in the organisation in such circumstances and to apply it to
the workers concerned would be at variance with the policy and
practice of the Company. It would give rise to difficulties
for the Company's industrial relations, and could lead to
knock on claims both within the Company and throughout the
aviation industry as a whole.
5. The Labour Court has adjudicated on a similar claim in the
past in another organisation and found against it (details
supplied to the Court). The staff concerned in the claim
already enjoy a generous remuneration package involving
incremental rates of pay, shift and overtime premiums and
generous privileges in relation to sick leave, air travel, and
other conditions. In the light of all of the above the
Company asks the Court to recommend in its favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions by the parties the Court
does not consider that a claim for the extension of conditions
informally arranged outside the terms of the national agreement
for Aer Lingus can be sustained. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
25th November, 1988.
P.F./J.C. Deputy Chairman