Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89712 Case Number: LCR12646 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 workers in the computer maintenance unit for the application of an off-scale payment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court takes the view that no subsequent changes altered the basis
of the off scale payment which was personal to those to whom it
was originally offered. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89712 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12646
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 workers in the computer
maintenance unit for the application of an off-scale payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1979 a car/disturbance allowance was paid to the computer
maintenance supervisors. Following a re-organisation in 1981 of
the computer maintenance unit an agreement was reached covering
the revised operation and the car/disturbance allowance was
replaced by a composite allowance of #1,000 per annum (now valued
at #1,648 per annum). This allowance was to be applicable from
1st January, 1981, to the then present office holders on a
personal basis. The Union claims that this allowance should now
be extended to workers recruited into the unit since, 1981. As no
agreement could be achieved locally, the matter was referred on
22nd August, 1989, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on 28th September, 1989, and on 9th October, 1989, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 26th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In a effort to gain acceptance by the workers of a
re-organisation plan in 1988, the Company offered as part of
the package, to guarantee the continuation of the off-scale
payment, which it had threatened to do away with, to the 5
out of the 6 workers who were in receipt of it at that time.
(Due to staff turnover 2 of the 5 workers have since been
replaced).
Prior to this re-organisation the Company could argue for a
buy-out on the basis that the reason for the payment no longer
existed. However, as a result of the 1988 re-organisation
agreement the situation has changed considerably. Clearly,
guaranteed retention of the payment as part of the package
establishes that the new basis for the payment is one of
compensation for co-operation with the re-organisation.
2. This guaranteed retention of the allowance went a long way
to securing agreement on the re-organisation. In these
circumstances it is inequitable that the payment is not made
to all 6 workers doing the same job and affected equally by
the re-organisation agreed in 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1981, when the allowance was restructured eligibility
was clearly defined i.e. the allowance was to be paid to
current staff only on a personal basis. Consequent to the
1981 re-organisation one of the claimants hereconcerned
accepted a vacancy in the computer maintenance unit and was
fully aware that he would not qualify for the allowance. The
two other workers concerned in the claim were not in the
section at the time.
2. Never at any stage since its implementation has the
allowance been part of any settlement in the area. During the
1988 re-organisation an agreement was reached through
upgradings for staff or taking on additional responsibilities
and compensation of #2,500 for change in roster duties.
Provision was also made for possible loss of earnings.
3. There is no basis for acceding to the claim. To do so
would leave it open for all the workers in the communications
department to have a legitimate case for this money.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court takes the view that no subsequent changes altered the basis
of the off scale payment which was personal to those to whom it
was originally offered. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
17th November, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.