Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89648 Case Number: LCR12641 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of members of the Airport Police Fire Service at Shannon Airport for time and one half for night duties.
Recommendation:
5. Having examined the submissions from both parties and noting
the additional points made at the hearing the Court is of the view
that there may be merit in the claim and that it might be further
considered at local level.
As the Company specifically quoted the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery as a defence against the concession of the claim
the Court accordingly does not recommend in the Union's favour.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89648 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12641
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of members of the Airport Police Fire Service
at Shannon Airport for time and one half for night duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The present shift payment for the Airport Police Fire Service
(A.P.F.S.) at Shannon Airport is time and one sixth plus a
supplement of #6.05 for night duties. Following a Labour Court
recommendation (L.C.R. NO. 12321) in March, 1989 time plus a half
was paid to members of the A.P.F.S. at Dublin Airport only. The
Union has claimed a similar payment for their members of the
A.P.F.S. at Shannon Airport who work nights to a different
pattern. The Company has rejected the claim on the grounds that
it is contrary to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
and that the specific criteria and conditions which led to
L.C.R. NO. 12321 do not apply at Shannon Airport. Local
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
5th July, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 14th
September, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 20th September, 1989 and a Court hearing took place in
Limerick on the 12th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under L.C.R. NO. 12321 payment of time and one half was
conceded to members of A.P.F.S. at Dublin Airport who work
five successive nights, and where there is not more than an
eight week interval between such nights. The shift pattern
being worked at Shannon Airport is structured differently to
that at Dublin Airport but suits both the Company and the
staff.
2. The A.P.F.S. at Shannon Airport work two and one half
times the amount of nights the A.P.F.S. at Dublin Airport
works in order to qualify for the higher rate for night
duties. The pattern of nights worked at Shannon Airport is
much more onerous and severe on the workers concerned than the
pattern at Dublin Airport.
3. The Union is seeking time plus one half for nights plus
the supplement and retrospection on the same basis as it
applies to members of the A.P.F.S. in Dublin Airport.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following L.C.R. NO. 12321 time and one half was paid to
members of the A.P.F.S. at Dublin Airport only in line with
the external relativity with Aer Lingus operatives. The claim
before the Court at that time was exclusively based on the
external relationship with Aer Lingus operative grades.
2. The rostering arrangements for the members of A.P.F.S. at
Shannon Airport are well established and are different from
those at Dublin Airport. The Company could not entertain the
extension of the payment of time and one half to Shannon
Airport based solely on the Dublin Airport rostering
arrangements.
3. The specific criteria of five or more successive night
duties over the eight week roster cycle which qualifies
members of A.P.F.S. at Dublin Airport for time and one half
for night duties does not apply to members of A.P.F.S. at
Shannon Airport and consequently cannot be paid.
4. The Union's claim would be contrary to the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery.