Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89235 Case Number: LCR12406 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Unions that cleaning operatives have the right to transfer to the loading section under the terms of the 1971 Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the terms of the 1971 Agreement do not give an
automatic right to a transfer as between cleaning and loading.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89235 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12406
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions that cleaning operatives have the right to
transfer to the loading section under the terms of the 1971
Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 60 operatives employed as cleaners in the
cleaning section. The basic entry grade in the manual structure
of the Company is that of loader/cleaner, and when operatives are
recruited they are assigned, after basic training, to either the
cleaning or the loading section. The Unions' claim that
assignment to either of the two branches is arbitrary, and that
the workers in the cleaning section have the right to transfer to
the loading section when vacancies arise there. They claim that
the workers should not have to apply for these positions, and that
they have this right of transfer arising from the 1971 Agreement
between the Unions and the Company. The Company is not prepared
to concede an automatic right of transfer. It contends that
assignment is based on suitability, and that this applies from day
one. Agreement could not be reached on the issue of local level,
and on 25th January, 1989 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 2nd March, 1989. No agreement was
reached, and on 31st March, 1989, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 27th April, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the terms of its 1971 Agreement, the operatives in
the cleaning section have the right to transfer across to
loading section (details supplied to the Court). The initial
employment is as a loading/cleaning operative. They are
employees in an integrated section, and they should not have
to apply for vacancies when they arise in the loading section.
2. The method of choosing between workers for the cleaning or
loading section is almost entirely arbitrary. The Company, in
its own written communication, accept that it has an
integrated loader/cleaner section, covering certain operations
as set out in the 1971 Agreement. The Company wishes to
implement the terms of the Agreement to suit itself, and
according to its interpretation anybody working in the
cleaning section is condemned to remain there. The workers
have the right to transfer to the loading section when
vacancies arise, and they should be allowed to fulfill this
right. The matter is of more than theoretical importance, as
the opportunities for overtime are greater in the loading
section.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Article 11.1 (d) of the 1971 Operative Agreement states
"employees will be rostered for specific duties each week
based on their present section i.e. loading and cleaning but
transfers may be effected between the sections. Duty may be
changed when the need arises e.g. when priority has to be
given to one or other function." There is nothing in this
clause of the Agreement which gives the right to a particular
employee or group of employees to be transferred from one
section to another in Dublin Station department. The
Company's interpretation is that employees will be rostered in
their respective areas but that the Company has the right to
transfer them in certain situations.
2. No individual group or category of worker in Aer Lingus
has an automatic right to transfer to a section or department
of their choice and the Company would vigorously defend this
position. Because of the nature of the work in each section
individuals need different qualities in performing the tasks
required in the loading and cleaning sections. The Company
could not agree to transfer workers who were not suitable.
The Company has in the past and will continue in the future,
to consider requests from individual aircraft cleaners to
transfer at the basic grade to aircraft loaders but the normal
selection criteria on suitability must be met, and positions
must be available.
3. The operative grades in both aircraft cleaning and loading
above operative grade A were determined by job ranking on the
basis of the work in each section. These grades are rostered
for the particular work which is distinct and separate in each
area. An operative above grade A could not transfer to either
section and hold his/her grade. Promotional positions up to
the more senior operative grades in both sections are
advertised, and the successful candidates invariably come from
within the section where the vacancies occur (details supplied
to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the terms of the 1971 Agreement do not give an
automatic right to a transfer as between cleaning and loading.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
19th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.