Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89561 Case Number: LCR12549 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B.P. IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for a once-off payment of #1,500 in respect of key holding duties at Dublin Airport terminal.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the claim as presented would be in clear breach of the
Programme for National Recovery.The Court notes that the Union
claims that an anomaly exists between staff in Dublin Airport
Depot and staff in Dublin Depot in respect of payment for the
holding of keys, and that the Company does not share this
view.The Court is of the view that meaningful negotiations on
cost reductions in respect of the operation at the Airport Depot
could enable the parties to find a resolution of their
differences on a basis appropriate to the separate negotiating
status of the Airport Depot employees.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89561 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12549
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: B.P. IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a once-off payment of #1,500 in
respect of key holding duties at Dublin Airport terminal.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 7 workers (1 working supervisor, 3 senior
airfield operators, and 3 airfield operators) who are employed at
the Company's terminal at Dublin Airport. The Company has
recently implemented a major rationalisation plan at its main
Dublin terminal (Alexandra Road). Part of the plan included the
issuing of keys to certain staff members for the purpose of
entering and locking up the depot. The Company claims that the
holding of keys represented a new condition for staff and
facilitated a considerable saving on the Company's part. A once
off payment of #1,500 was made to each worker at the Dublin
depot.
3. The Union is claiming the same payment on behalf of its
members at the Dublin Airport terminal arguing that the Company
requested the workers concerned to handle keys. The Company
rejected the claim stating that the Dublin Airport terminal was
excluded from the rationalisation plan and that there was no
request by Management for any change in work practices at the
Airport terminal. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue
and the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 2nd August, 1989. Conciliation conferences
were held on the 4th and 11th August, 1989 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 21st August, 1989. A
Court hearing was held on the 23rd August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to a spirit of co-operation a practice commenced
whereby senior airfield operators used keys to access to
and exit from the Company's premises. No compensation or
special payments were ever paid by the Company. Early in
June, 1989 the Company any tried to compound this abuse by
requesting the airfield operators to assume the same sort
of responsibility, also without compensation. The Company
should compensate the workers concerned for the
responsibility involved and also for the responsibility
undertaken by senior airfield operators over the years for
which they were never compensated.
2. The Company gave each driver at the Dublin terminal a
once off payment of #1,500 tax paid for lesser
responsibilities. The negotiations in respect of the Dublin
terminal were designed to bring that terminal in line with
the Airport depot, by way of reducing the cover given by
managers, and supervisors.
3. The workers at Dublin terminal received their once-off
payment for the sole purpose of using the keys supplied by
the Company to gain access to and exit from the Company's
premises and depot. The operational coverage introduced at
the Dublin terminal has been in operation at the Airport
depot, the only difference being that the Dublin terminal
drivers received compensation for this duty, while the
Airport workers received nothing.
4. The senior airfield operators receive a differential
for their extra responsibilities (details supplied to the
Court).No agreement was entered into regarding the use of
keys at Dublin Airport. Other depots over the years have
received payments for handling keys, the Airport workers
received nothing . It is only fitting that the seven
workers concerned who have sacrificed a great deal over the
years, should receive the same amount of compensation as
the Dublin terminal workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The rationalisation programme under which the payments
were made at the Dublin depot did not apply at the Dublin
Airport depot. At the initiation of staff at the Airport
depot negotiations on pay and conditions in respect of that
group are separate and distinct from negotiations for staff
elsewhere.
2. The staff at Dublin Airport are seeking the application
of a once of payment on the grounds that it has been paid
to another group. The circumstances surrounding the
payment do not apply to the Airport depot, in that payment
was made in respect of the introduction of new working
arrangements and responsibilities at the Dublin depot
involving significant cost savings to the Company.
3. There have been no discussions on cost savings in
respect of the operation at the Airport depot and
consequently it cannot be argued that circumstances exist
at the present time which would warrant the payment sought.
4. Senior airfield operators are paid a differential in
view of their range of responsibilities which incorporate
responsibility for access to relevant parts of the depots.
Telephone rental is also paid by the Company. These
arrangements have applied for many years.
5. This claim is in breach of the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery in that clause 4 of the agreement
states that apart from increases in basic pay "no further
cost increasing claims will be made on employers." The
Company believes that there are no valid grounds for
conceding this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the claim as presented would be in clear breach of the
Programme for National Recovery.The Court notes that the Union
claims that an anomaly exists between staff in Dublin Airport
Depot and staff in Dublin Depot in respect of payment for the
holding of keys, and that the Company does not share this
view.The Court is of the view that meaningful negotiations on
cost reductions in respect of the operation at the Airport Depot
could enable the parties to find a resolution of their
differences on a basis appropriate to the separate negotiating
status of the Airport Depot employees.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
12th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.