Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88514 Case Number: LCR12088 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;NATIONAL ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING TRADES UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately 460 workers for concession airline travel.
Recommendation:
7. Having regard to the position in other subsidiary companies of
Aer Lingus and the conditions obtaining in firms in which it is
directly in competition the Court does not consider the Unions'
claim for travel concessions to be sustainable and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88514 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12088
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 460 workers for concession
airline travel.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is owned by Aer Lingus, is a private sector
Company, providing jet engine overhaul facilities to domestic and
international airlines. The Company was established in 1979 and
currently employs 540 people.
3. The Unions first lodged the claim for concession travel i.e.
whereby the workers could purchase airline tickets at reduced
rates from Aer Lingus, in 1983. The claim was rejected by the
Company. It was subsequently raised again in 1986 and 1987 and
again was rejected by the Company.
4. The claim was then referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 13th April, 1988. A conciliation conference was
held on 27th June, 1988 (earlier dates unsuitable). As no
agreement was possible a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation was requested by the parties. A
Court hearing was held on 10th October, 1988 a date suitable to
the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the Company was established it was necessary to
invite interested Aer Lingus staff to join. These staff
retained their right to travel concessions even after they
severed all links with Aer Lingus and became permanent
Airmotive staff.
2. Other wholly owned subsidiary companies of Aer Lingus
grant travel concessions to their staff (details supplied to
the Court).
3. Aer Rianta was established in 1968. Prior to 1968 Airport
services were catered for by Aer Lingus. Staff who
transferred from Aer Lingus to Aer Rianta maintained their
full entitlement to concession travel.
4. In 1972, the unions in Aer Rianta were faced with the
problem of a large number of new employees who did not enjoy
the advantage of concession travel in line with Aer Lingus
staff. The F.W.U.I. representing staff at Aer Rianta referred
negotiations re pay and conditions to the Labour Court. The
Court in its Recommendation No. 2645 said:-
"Having carefully considered all the arguments, the Court
has come to the conclusion that the Company's offer to
apply to its clerical staff the pay and conditions
recently agreed for employees of Aer Lingus is reasonable
and should be accepted. The Court notes, however, that
there is discrepancy of treatment in the matter of travel
concessions and it recommends that discussions should take
place between the parties with a view to finding a means
of removing this disparity. If an exactly similar travel
concession cannot be granted for any particular reason,
Aer Rianta should agree to grant some travel or other
concession of generally equivalent value to its employees"
The final agreement worked out by the unions and Aer Rianta
entitles 1100 of their staff to avail of concession travel on
Aer Lingus services.
5. Aer Rianta in 1976 bought over sales and catering
services. Negotiations re concession travel resulted in a
further Court hearing. Final agreement entitles staff known
in the Company as group 3, to concession travel worth £266.00
per year.
6. In the 1988 Report on Aer Lingus the Chief Executive in
his reference to this Company under the heading of "Airline
Related Services" acknowledged its contribution to the overall
profitability of Aer Lingus (details supplied to the Court).
It can only be concluded that the maintenance of good profits
at Airmotive is of great benefit to Aer Lingus. Accordingly
the Court is asked to recommend in favour of the Unions'
claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is an overhaul Company, not an airline, and as
such does not have control over the granting of airline travel
concessions. In fact overhaul companies in other countries do
not have this concession (details supplied to the Court). If
travel concession were granted, the extra cost would make the
Company less competitive with its direct competitors.
2. The staff to whom travel concession apply in the
subsidiary companies of Aer Lingus were former employees of
that Company and retained their travel concessions when they
transferred. These number of employees are dwindling all the
time as a result of retirements, job terminations etc.
3. Wage round negotiations to date have been conducted on the
basis of Airmotive being an independent private sector company
and not on the basis of comparison with the public sector
national airline. Wage settlements in Airmotive have differed
substantially from those applied to Aer Lingus staff. The
private sector status has been acknowledged by the Group in a
previous submission to the Court in support a wage claim.
Analysis of comparable wage settlements in that submission
were confined to private sector and not public sector
employments. The Company would therefore contend that
selective reference by the Group to a feature of Aer Lingus
employment in support of its claim in this instance cannot be
sustained.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having regard to the position in other subsidiary companies of
Aer Lingus and the conditions obtaining in firms in which it is
directly in competition the Court does not consider the Unions'
claim for travel concessions to be sustainable and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________________
25th October, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.