Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89671 Case Number: LCR12645 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Rates of pay for eighteen workers who are employed in the catering department of the Company.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that previous seasonal employment is not a
basis for deviating from the agreed rate of pay applying in
subsequent seasons. Accordingly workers previously employed at
old rates could be re-employed in a subsequent season at new
rates.
The new rates were introduced by agreement with effect from 1/4/88
and the Court therefore recommends that those claimants who were
taken on for the 1988 season before that date should be paid the
old rates.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89671 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12645
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rates of pay for eighteen workers who are employed in the
catering department of the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns eighteen workers who had worked in the
Company in a temporary capacity prior to their being made
permanent in October, 1988. It arose because of the application
of the new rates of pay and conditions of employment. These new
rates and conditions were introduced into the Company with effect
from April, 1988. The union contend that as the workers concerned
had worked with the Company prior to agreement on new rates and
conditions their remuneration and conditions should be that which
applies to long serving employees. Labour Court Recommendation
No. 11871 deals with the introduction of new rates of pay and
conditions for new operative recruits. Paragraph D of that
recommendation states:-
"On matters concerning the employment of catering staff the
Court notes that the parties have agreed to meet directly to
attempt to overcome difficulties particular to this area of
employment".
Discussions took place between the parties in an effort to resolve
a dispute concerning twenty three temporary workers who had been
made permanent following a competition advertised in January,
1988. These workers had been appointed with rates of pay and
conditions as proposed in the Company's new recruits scheme.
During discussions the Company agreed to have the "old" rates of
pay and working conditions applied to the twenty three workers.
The situation regarding the eighteen workers concerned with this
dispute was then raised by the Union. Company/Union discussions
failed to resolve the issue. The dispute was the subject of a
Labour Court conciliation conference on 25th August, 1989. As no
agreement was reached the Union requested a full Court hearing.
The Company agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on 20th
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A recall system existed in the catering department
whereby temporary workers were let go and rehired in strict
rotation in accordance with seniority. Seasonal workers were
hired on a once off basis for a specified period of time with
no recall rights. The eighteen workers concerned with the
claim were engaged as temporary employees, with full recall
rights (copy of (A) letter dated September, 1985 which issued
to one worker advising of placing on recall list and (B) copy
of a letter dated November, 1987 which issued to the same
worker concerning placing on a panel for future positions
following an interview for a permanent position, supplied to
the Court).
2. In March, 1988, the eighteen workers were recalled and
placed on the adjusted wage rates and conditions along with
all newly recruited workers. In November, 1988, the workers
were made permanent but remained on the adjusted wages and
conditions. Their appointment was back dated to April, 1988.
The earlier service of the workers is not being recognised by
the Company (details of workers and their original dates of
appointment - temporary supplied to the Court).
3. The workers who were made permanent in April, 1988, were
all appointed prior to 1988 and are therefore not covered by
LCR11871 as it issued in May, 1988. This Labour Court
Recommendation was in respect of adjusted wage rates and
conditions for newly recruited workers. Newly recruited
workers or new entrants must mean individuals who are being
engaged for work by the Company for the first time. As the
Court's Recommendation applies to new recruits it then can
only apply to the eighteen workers on the same basis as it
applies to all other permanent workers.
4. Company net profits to date for 1989 is approximately
twenty eight million pounds. This is approximately three
million ahead of budget. The average loss per week to each of
the eighteen workers is twenty five pounds. Whereas this is a
substantial amount of money for each worker to loose, it is
nothing to a Company showing such a substantial profit.
5. The claim is not open ended as it only covers a total of
eighteen workers. It is peculiar to these workers because of
the agreements regarding recall which does not exist in any
other area. Accordingly, no other workers in the company
could serve a similar claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The eighteen workers were originally employed as
seasonal workers. This means they were employed for a season
only with no obligation on the Company to employ them in
future. The workers were interviewed on each occasion that
they were offered seasonal employment e.g. a worker employed
for the summers of 1986 and 1987 would have been interviewed
at the beginning of each summer. The worker would also be
interviewed in October, 1987 as it was possible some extra
staff would be required for Christmas that year. Accordingly
the eighteen workers were not employed on a recall basis.
2. The new rates and conditions of employment were accepted
by the Union in October, 1988. It was made clear that any
future jobs offered to any person in any Department would be
on terms of the new rates and conditions. The eighteen
workers concerned with the claim were made permanent in
November, 1988. As they had worked satisfactory as seasonal
workers during the summer of 1988 their permanency was back
dated to April, 1988.
3. The Union has sought to rely on paragraph B of Labour
Court Recommendation 11871, but in doing so taken it out of
context. Paragraph B must be read in conjuction with
paragraph A. Clearly it refers to permanent workers already
recruited, who may have suffered as a result of a change in
the scale. Paragraphs A and B of the recommendation states:-
(A) "It is the view of the Court that the proposed
starting rate is too low and the Court recommends
that the scale be amended by the elimination of
the first two points and thus provide for a
starting rate at age 18 of #124.34.
(B) It is further the view of the Court that the
resulting 34 year scale is too long and it
recommends that the parties meet to negotiate the
elimination of a further 4 points. It is expected
that such negotiations would provide for
continuing assurance that there would be no
worsening of conditions of staff recruited prior
to the introduction by the Company of the new
structure this year.
The eighteen workers were not permanent employees prior to the new
agreement. They were offered permanent positions and accepted
those positions on the new rates and conditions.
4. The Union state that this claim is closed to the eighteen
workers and that it will have no knock on effect in other
Departments. If their claim is accepted it would mean that any
worker who had ever been employed by the Company on the old rates
would be entitled to go on to those rates if offered a job now or
in the future. The Company has workers in other Departments in
the same position as the eighteen claimants.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that previous seasonal employment is not a
basis for deviating from the agreed rate of pay applying in
subsequent seasons. Accordingly workers previously employed at
old rates could be re-employed in a subsequent season at new
rates.
The new rates were introduced by agreement with effect from 1/4/88
and the Court therefore recommends that those claimants who were
taken on for the 1988 season before that date should be paid the
old rates.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th November, 1989 ---------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman