Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9087 Case Number: LCR12769 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the restoration of pay parity between Supervisory Chefs and Technical Supervisors.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the
historical background of the dual function payment as it applied
to Technical Supervisors, the Court is of the view that the
incorporation of this payment into the restructured Maintenance
and Engineering Technical Supervisors scales and its extension to
the Maintenance Services Technical Supervisors scales changed the
nature of the payment.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that an amount
equivalent to the dual function payment cannot reasonably be
excluded from the scales under discussion between the parties
arising from the restructuring of the area concerned.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9087 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12769
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the restoration of pay parity between
Supervisory Chefs and Technical Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In November, 1989 negotiations on a
productivity/restructuring arrangement for craftsmen in the
Company's Maintenance and Engineering Department concluded
successfully. The agreement provided for the consolidation of a
dual function payment of #750 per annum into the basic rates of
Technical Supervisors. Prior to November, 1989, the dual function
payment was an off-scale payment that applied to Technical
Supervisors only.
2. In November, 1989, the Company and Union held discussion
on the restructuring of the Company's Catering Department. The
Company proposed new pay scales for Chefs and Supervisory Chefs,
based on the current structure, with three levels of supervision.
The revised pay scales were unacceptable to the Union as they
differed from Technical Supervisors' new pay structures i.e. there
were three levels of supervision rather than two and the scales
did not include a dual function payment. The Company amended its
revised pay scales to include a two tier supervisory structure
similar to that of Technical Supervisors. As the dual function
payment was not consolidated into the amended revised scales the
Union was not willing to negotiate on restructuring. The issue
was the subject of a Labour Court conciliation conference on 22nd
January, 1990. No agreement was reached and the Union requested a
full Court hearing on 26th January, 1990. The Company agreed and
the Court investigated the dispute on 28th February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1977, agreement was reached with the Company to link
Chefs rates of pay with those of tradesmen, on a strict parity
related basis. In 1978, Supervisory Chefs' rates were linked
on a strict parity basis with Technical Supervisors' rates.
Clause 6 of the Conciliation Council Recommendation covering
Supervisory Chefs in Aer Lingus states:-
"The Council recommends that these pay relationships
between Supervisory Chefs and Technical Supervisors
should be maintained in the future unless the Technical
Supervisors secure a pay increase for reasons which are
peculiar to Technical Supervisors and have no
application to Supervisory Chefs".
The payment in dispute i.e the dual function payment, was
originally peculiar to Technical Supervisors. It was paid
annually as an off-scale to the workers concerned. In
November, 1989, the Company changed the #750 off-scale, dual
function payment to a weekly on-scale payment, thus increasing
Technical Supervisors' basic rates.
2. Maintenance Supervisors claimed parity with Technical
Supervisors and upheld their claim on the basis of an
agreement with the Company by way of a Labour Court
Recommendation, which issued in September, 1977, linking the
basic rates of the two categories on a strict parity basis.
Consequently, the claim for the payment of #750 on-scale on a
weekly basis, to Maintenance Supervisors, was conceded in
order to maintain the agreed parity. The agreed parity with
Supervisory Chefs must also be maintained by the payment of
#750 on a weekly basis, on-scale.
3. The dual function payment is made in respect of checking
and signing out of work. Supervisory Chefs, who are totally
responsible for all work performed in their areas of
operation, have similar responsibilities. Similar to
Technical Supervisors, Supervisory Chefs operate within five
integrated areas. The workers concerned must have expert and
professional qualifications. Integration in other craft areas
is restricted.
4. The payment now claimed is no longer peculiar to
Technical Supervisors. Since Supervisory Chefs are linked
with Technical Supervisors by way of pay parity, they are
entitled to the same on scale, dual function weekly payment as
that which currently applies to Technical and Maintenance
Supervisors.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Dual function payments were made to Technical
Supervisors in the Maintenance and Engineering Department, who
carry out supervisory and inspection duties. The off-scale
payment (prior to November, 1989) was applied to Approved
Aircraft Technical Supervisors i.e. workers approved to
certify certificates of compliance for work or equipment in
accordance with statutory airworthiness requirements.
2. In 1977, following an internal conciliation conference
pay parity for Technical Supervisors and Supervisory Chefs was
recommended. It was also recommended that the pay
relationships be maintained unless Technical Supervisors
secure a pay increase for reasons which are peculiar to
Technical Supervisors and have no application to Supervisory
Chefs. Technical Supervisors' and Supervisory Chefs' pay
relationships was maintained until 1989 when there was a
complete restructuring of the Technical Supervisors' pay
scale. Before the new scales were put in place Technical
Supervisors agreed to changes which included line maintenance
amalgamation, a two shift overhaul programme, a two tier
supervisory structure and supervision of an integrated
workforce. There are now only two supervisory pay scales.
The two new scales include the dual function payment on-scale.
Supervisory Chefs are not automatically entitled to the new
scales, including the dual function payment as the revised
scales are peculiar to Technical Supervisors.
3. Technical Supervisors in the Maintenance Services area
were not paid the off-scale dual function payment. When the
dual function payment went on scale for Technical Supervisors
in the Maintenance and Engineering Department, Maintenance
Service Supervisors claimed parity because of a 1977 Labour
Court Recommendation which stated:-
"any adjustment to the basic salary scale of Licensed
Aircraft Supervisors from September, 1974 should be
applied to the basic scales for the Garage Technical
Supervisors".
Following a Labour Court conciliation conference, maintenance
Service Supervisors received pay scales inclusive of dual
function payments. This was agreed to because Supervisors in
the Maintenance Services area are Technical Supervisors and
because they supervise an integrated multi-trade workforce.
They also agreed to restructuring.
4. The claim by Supervisory Chefs for scales inclusive of
dual function payment is not a claim for parity but rather a
claim for relativity. A claim for dual function payment based
on merit cannot be made as the work is totally different to
both that of Technical Supervisors in Maintenance and
Engineering and the Maintenance Services area. Dual function
payment was a payment peculiar to Technical Supervisors. The
current claim is based only on the fact that another group of
workers has this payment. Therefore Supervisory Chefs want it
- the claim is purely one of relativity. Relativity claims
are no longer valid since the report of the Special Committee
on Relativities in 1981 (copy supplied to the Court). The
report recommended that relativity clauses should be deleted
and that payments should be made for deletions. The report
was accepted, the relativities deleted and payments were made.
Chefs received the benefit of the Tradesmens' payments, even
though they are covered by the Operative Grades Agreement.
They are, therefore, prohibited from making a relativity
claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the
historical background of the dual function payment as it applied
to Technical Supervisors, the Court is of the view that the
incorporation of this payment into the restructured Maintenance
and Engineering Technical Supervisors scales and its extension to
the Maintenance Services Technical Supervisors scales changed the
nature of the payment.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that an amount
equivalent to the dual function payment cannot reasonably be
excluded from the scales under discussion between the parties
arising from the restructuring of the area concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
9th April, 1990 ----------------
A. McG/U.S. Chairman