Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8972 Case Number: LCR12321 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for time and one half for night duties on behalf of members of the Airport Police Fire Service.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that insofar as the agreed relativity is
for parity of rates and conditions the Unions claim is
sustainable. The change in rate seems to have evolved in Aer
Lingus without any general concessions being given in return and
therefore the Court does not support the terms on which the
Company proposed conceding the Unions' claim. The Court therefore
recommends concession of the Unions' claim.
However the Court further is of the opinion that should the
Company seek on the same basis of parity changes in conditions
similar to those which already apply in Aer Lingus the parties
should commence direct discussions on the changes sought.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8972 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12321
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for time and one half for night duties on behalf of
members of the Airport Police Fire Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Airport Police Fire Service (A.P.F.S.) were prior to 1971,
part of the operative structure in Aer Rianta. In 1971 a separate
Union/Company agreement was concluded, which provided for new
rates of pay and conditions for members of the A.P.F.S. but
maintained a relativity relationship with Aer Rianta and Aer
Lingus operatives. The basic system of shift pay for members of
the A.P.F.S. is time and one sixth plus the following supplements,
Saturday #5.89; Sunday #7.88; Night duty #5.89. There has been
a traditional parity relationship between the Company's operative
grades and those in Aer Lingus which was negotiated through the
Aer Lingus Operative Grades Agreement in 1971. In the past number
of years various operative grades within Aer Lingus have been paid
at the rate of time and one half for working a period of five
consecutive nights, in cycles of seven or more weeks of
consecutive night duties. The Unions have been negotiating with
the Company since October, 1987 and in January, 1988 the Unions
submitted a written claim for payment of time and one half on
behalf for its members in the A.P.F.S. employed at the Company's
three airports. The Company rejects the claim on the grounds that
the 1971 Operative Grades Agreement has not been changed and that
there is no justification for the claim. Local discussions failed
to resolve the issue and the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 7th October, 1988.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 27th October, 22nd
December, 1988 and 30th January, 1989 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 3rd February, 1989. A
Court hearing took place on the 28th February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Because of the parity relationship which exists and is
already well established between the A.P.F.S. and the Aer
Lingus operatives the workers concerned are entitled to be
remunerated for working nights on the same basis as the Aer
Lingus operatives (i.e. time and one half). The overall
parity relationship is part of the Agreement on the separation
of the two companies and has been confirmed by successive
Labour Court Recommendations on pay rounds and other issues.
The parity relationship operates on a category to category
basis i.e. clerical to clerical craftsman to craftsman and
operative to operative. As the A.P.F.S. do not have direct
counterparts in Aer Lingus, the accepted position has been
that because of their original designation as operatives, they
share with Aer Rianta operatives parity with Aer Lingus
operatives. This parity mechanism is activated once a
relevant condition of employment is introduced or where an
existing one is deleted, amended, re interpreted or applied in
a fashion that is materially different from heretofore. In
the only three sections involved in the Aer Lingus operative
category the change in respect of night duty was negotiated
directly between the Company and the Unions. In all theses
cases neither the Company nor the Unions felt it necessary to
establish whether they were amending or re-interpreting the
Agreement. They were, however, both fully aware that they
were changing the application of the Operative Grades
Agreement, and equally aware that on a condition of employment
such as shift pay, the same interpretation must be universally
applied within the category. Whether the relevant clause of
the Operative Grades Agreement is being amended or
re-interpreted the effect is still the same - any operative
who works the night pattern referred to receives time and one
half. The parity relationship must require similar
application in the case of the A.P.F.S. in Aer Rianta.
2. Within Aer Lingus, the conditions necessary to justify a
relativity claim is that everybody in the category being
claimed against must have achieved the improvement. If that
criterion were applied to this claim, it would be successful
as the improved shift pay is universally applied to operatives
in Aer Lingus. In a case similar to this in August, 1987, the
Labour recommended that Aer Lingus Deputy Station Managers
should receive a payment equivalent to time and one half on
the grounds that their counterparts in the Trades Section were
already receiving it.
3. The reason advanced by the Company rejecting the Unions'
claim is that the change arose from a series of local
agreements. It seems that it is immaterial how the change
arose and what counts is that all Aer Lingus operatives now
benefit from the change. The Company goes on to state that it
requires a formal change to the Agreement to justify a parity
claim. Clearly the letter dated the 20th March, 1986 (details
supplied to the Court) from Aer Lingus to the Unions formally
confirms that the Agreement was changed - if it has had any
significance, the parties might have agreed whether it was an
amendment or a re-interpretation. The Company has repeatedly
stated that Aer Lingus confirms that Article 10 of the
Operative Grades Agreement which deals with shift pay has not
been altered. The Unions have not seen any letter to this
effect, nor do they know what question was asked although they
stressed at the initial meeting on this claim that Aer
Lingus should be asked, if all Operatives working the pattern
in question were obtaining time and one half. The Operative
Grades Agreement is for all purposes, jointly the property of
Aer Lingus and the two Unions which are presenting this case
for the A.P.F.S. Ownership in this instance extends to
responsibility for amending or interpreting the Agreement and
accordingly, the position of the singatory Unions on the
status of Article 10 has equal relevance. However, in order
to clarify the matter the Unions wrote to Aer Lingus in
January, 1989 stating their position, to the effect that as
far as the Unions were concerned, the compensation system for
night work has been amended. The Unions are confident that
had Aer Lingus any difficulty with this position, they would
have replied to that effect. As the revised compensation for
night work in Aer Lingus is universally applied in the
Operative Grades, it clearly must be deemed to be a change in
the Condition of Employment which comes within the scope of
the parity relationship. As there are no other factors to
justify maintaining the disparity, the Unions would ask the
Court to recommend that night work by the A.P.F.S. be treated
similarly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Time plus one half for 'permanent' night duties has been
paid in Aer Lingus for a number of years to those staff who
worked a period of seven or more weeks of consecutive night
duties. Normal shift pay of time and one sixth plus a night
duty supplement was paid for any sequence of night duties
below this level. An anomaly arose in an Aer Lingus
Department whereby staff who formally had worked the
'permanent' night duty pattern were transferred on to a roster
which no longer met the required conditions, but were
inadvertently left on time plus one half. The Unions
successfully argued for the retention of time plus one half in
this department and subsequently through a series of local
departmental agreements with Aer Lingus, got this rate applied
to staff who worked at least a period of five consecutive
nights over an eight week roster cycle. The Company has
rejected the Unions' claim on the grounds that the
introduction of the above criteria for time and one half for
night duties arose through local agreements coinciding with
changes in work practices in various departments. Such local
negotiations do not represent an alteration to the Operative
Grades Agreements and are outside the scale of the relativity
relationship. The rosters worked by the A.P.F.S. at Cork and
Shannon airports did not meet the criteria for payment of time
plus one half. The Company also maintains that the claim is
contrary to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.).
2. The Company did acknowledge that a significant number of
staff in Dublin Airport did work rosters which met the
criteria and offered to introduce time plus one half for these
staff in return for a self-financing alteration in work
practices (details supplied to the Court). The Unions
indicated that they were not prepared to negotiate on what
they regard as a relativity claim and referred the matter to
the conciliation service. At the conciliation conference in
December, 1988 the Company asked the Unions to provide written
confirmation that the Aer Lingus Operative Grades Agreement
had been amended to provide for time plus one half based on
the new criteria. They have not been able to provide this
confirmation. Even if the Agreement had been amended in Aer
Lingus, a claim based solely on relativity would be contrary
to the terms of the P.N.R.
3. However, the Company while rejecting the claim based on
the relativity relationship is prepared, in line with what
happened in Aer Lingus, to concede this payment to those staff
at Dublin Airport who work to the required pattern in return
for the appropriate alterations to existing work practices as
already outlined to the Unions. The expansion of aviation
activities in the late 1980's has brought its own demands in
terms of seasonal fluctuations in passenger facilitation and
security. Even without the forthcoming loss of revenue to the
airport authority through the proposed elimination of duty
free scales, it is already incumbent on the Company to provide
a safe, effective and efficient service for the travelling
public. Improvements in remuneration, costing #90,000 per
annum at Dublin Airport, cannot take place while at the same
time staff cling to outdated work practices. The Company
believes that it is equitable and in accord with the P.N.R. to
provide for developments in condition in line with evolving
work practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that insofar as the agreed relativity is
for parity of rates and conditions the Unions claim is
sustainable. The change in rate seems to have evolved in Aer
Lingus without any general concessions being given in return and
therefore the Court does not support the terms on which the
Company proposed conceding the Unions' claim. The Court therefore
recommends concession of the Unions' claim.
However the Court further is of the opinion that should the
Company seek on the same basis of parity changes in conditions
similar to those which already apply in Aer Lingus the parties
should commence direct discussions on the changes sought.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
20th March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.