Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89401 Case Number: LCR12562 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 39 technical supervisors concerning a differential payment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim, which if
granted would have the effect of breaking the common scale
applied to all supervisors in the Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89401 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12562
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 39 technical supervisors
concerning a differential payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1979, and is engaged in the
overhaul of aircraft engines. Approximately 600 people are
employed at present. The supervisory staffs comprise of 39
technical supervisors and 14 non-craft supervisors. In 1985, the
Union, on behalf of the technical supervisors, claimed an
incremental scale which would create an acceptable differential
over lead-hand mechanics and at the same time establish parity
among the technical supervisors at the maximum point. The Labour
Court, in Recommendation No. 9758, recommended the acceptance of
a salary scale. This salary scale was subsequently applied by
the Company to all supervisors across the board. The Union is
now claiming a 10% differential payment for technical supervisors
over the other supervisors on the basis of the extra skills and
responsibilities contained in the job functions. The claim is
rejected by the Company. On 21st March, 1989, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was possible at a conciliation conference held on 16th
May, 1989, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
31st May, 1989, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 1st September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company deals with a large number of engine models,
each posing different problems requiring the attention of the
technical supervisor. The technical supervisor must at all
times concentrate on achieving solutions at ensures a first
class product in the knowledge that a poor product could
irretrievably damage the Company's reputation and future
operations, as well as the possibility of putting lives at
risk.
2. The technical supervisors must be technically competent
and capable of understanding and carrying out various facets
of engineering processes. They must also have the
flexibility and ability to undertake training in the ever
growing techneurology of aircraft propulsion. The excellence
of the technical supervisors has made a significant
contribution to the Company's success.
3. The role of supervisors has been traditionally defined as
someone who exercise control by the actual overseeing and
direction of production, however the technical supervisors
role is more akin to a mini-manager, having increasingly a
broader span of responsibilities due to the increasing
advanced manufacturing technology of aircraft and aircraft
engines. Technical supervisors cannot be compared with craft
supervisors in other industries because of the type of work
they undertake, where emphasis is placed on the safety factor
employed in aircraft and the ever growing concern on engine
reliability . If comparability is desired, a comparable
company would be Aer Lingus , where off-scale payments have
been paid for extra skills and responsibilities .
4. The terms and conditions of employment for Aer Lingus
technical supervisors opting for secondment and/or permanency
with the Company clearly show that plus payments did exist.
It is also recognised that the role of technical supervisors
carry such payments as are now being claimed. The same
document states that these plus payments disappear at
management level (full details provided to the Court).
5. The role and responsibilities of technical supervisors,
based on special skills imported from Aer Lingus, have in no
way been diluted. In the 10 years of the Company's life they
have in fact increased with the advances being made in engine
technology.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has applied the pay terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.) with effect from 1st July, 1989. In
addition, a one hour reduction in the working week was
introduced from 14th July, 1989. The salary increase and
reduction in the working week have increased labour costs
substantially. The P.N.R. also provides that no cost
increasing claims will arise during the period of the
Agreement.
2. The core supervisory function of supervising staff is
common to all grades. Each supervisory grade performs
functions of similar responsibility. While technical
supervisors have been recruited from the craft grades,
supervisors from remaining grades have in-depth expertise and
experience in their own fields and possess qualifications
which are relevant to their specific fields. The duties and
responsibilities of non-craft supervisors are particularly
onerous on occasions, involving, direct client/vendor liaison
at senior level, administration of budgets of up to U.S.$30m.,
ensuring highly expensive material parts are purchased and
delivered in a cost effective manner. Many of the non-craft
supervisors are required to have a high level of technical
knowledge in order to carry out their duties efficiently and
effectively.
3. This type of claim is running counter to the modern
development in industry whereby the craftsperson is being
integrated into the overall production process and in these
situations is frequently being supervised by people from a
non-craft background.
4. The Company's supervisory rates, established as a result of
a Labour Court recommendation in 1985, compare quite
favourably with rates applying to technical supervisors in
other reputable companies. The Union has argued its case for
a craft supervisor differential on the basis that the crafts
people they supervise enjoy a wage differential over grades
supervised by non-craft supervisors. This contention is
incorrect in that the majority of these grades earn in excess
of crafts people.
5. Technical supervisors have the opportunity of
supplementing their earnings with shiftwork and consistently
high levels of overtime. Non-craft supervisors do no enjoy
these opportunities to the same degree and consequently earn
significantly less, on average, than technical supervisors.
6. The Union, in its 1985 submission to the Court, advanced
the following proposition in support of its claim for a common
scale for its supervisory members:
"This Union would propose to
the Court the principle that workers working for the same
Employer, under the same conditions should receive the same
rate of pay, is a well established point in this case."
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim, which if
granted would have the effect of breaking the common scale
applied to all supervisors in the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
18th September, 1989 . Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.