Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89886 Case Number: LCR12801 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for a lump sum payment in respect of the introduction of new technology at the Company's duty free shop at Shannon Airport.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, given the submissions of the parties, recommends
that the Company proposals in respect of the introduction of new
technology be accepted.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89886 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12801
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a lump sum payment in respect of the introduction of
new technology at the Company's duty free shop at Shannon Airport.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been introducing new technology on an on-going
basis throughout the organisation over the past two years. The
claim before the Court involves commercial assistants (sales
staff), store staff and display staff. At local level the Union
lodged a claim based on an earlier settlement at Shannon and
Dublin with clerical staff. This settlement, also in respect of
new technology, was based on a pool of money equal to the sum of
2.50 weeks' pay multiplied by the number of permanent staff in each
airport. A joint committee in each airport then decided on the
individual involvement of each employee and the final distribution
system. This resulted in permanent clerical staff receiving a
minimum of #330 for minimal involvement to a maximum of #990 for
maximum involvement. In response to the claim, the Company
offered commercial assistants #330, stores staff #600 and display
staff #660. These payments had already been made to staff in
Dublin Airport in respect of the same technology (the staff in
Dublin are represented by another union). This was rejected by
the Union which argued that unlike the clerical situation, it had
no input into the agreement reached in Dublin. As no agreement
could be reached at local level, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 25th October,
1989. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference on
the 28th November and the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Limerick on the 31st January, 1990 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants passively agreed to the introduction of new
technology in advance of any formal negotiations or agreements
in the expectation that recompense would be at the same rate
as the clerical section. This co-operation in moving with the
times without obstruction or delay should be met with a like
response from the Company in acknowledging and rewarding same
as a quid pro quo and in the interest of future trust.
2. The Union was unable to accept the Company's offer because
it was not in line with the amounts paid to Shannon clerical
and purchasing stores staff. In addition, some Free Post
Stores staff received #800 through the clerical payout, junior
buyers received #900 and it can be assumed that senior buyers
received substantially more.
3. At no time was there a Shannon input into the Dublin/Cork
shops new technology negotiations as was the case in the
clerical situation. Dublin shops staff are in a different
union and on a different, lower, basic pay structure.
Accordingly Shannon shops staff can hardly be bound by an
agreement made in their absence and without their knowledge.
In this context it has been stated by the Company that should
Dublin receive more payments at any future time for new
technology then Shannon will also receive similar amounts.
This procedure was acceptable to the clerical section, who,
with their Dublin counterparts part-took in the original
negotiations. It is incorrect that Shannon duty free section
should be expected to accept an imposed settlement when they
had no part to play in the negotiated settlement in Dublin
Airport on behalf of the staff in Dublin.
4. The Company letter of August, 29th states "the payment of
#330 once-off lump sums has become the established, accepted
minimum payment throughout the Company, available to staff
where new technology has been introduced or is in the process
of being implemented in their areas." This minimum sum of
#330 is seen as that applicable to those staff in new
technology areas who have no involvement whatsoever with
computer systems, such as Food Shop staff who have received
this minimum sum. Accordingly, a higher figure was deemed
justified for Free Port and liquor staff, all of whom are
actually implementing the new technology.
3. 5. On the 18th October, 1989, new technology payments were
lodged to the bank accounts or in the pay cheques of duty free
shop staff in the gross amounts as detailed in the Company's
offer. The workers concerned did not request these payments
and received no prior notification that they were to get them.
Furthermore, there was no agreement on these sums.
6. The Court is asked to recommend payments of #500 and
#1,000 to the permanent staff involved or the introduction of
a pool system for permanent staff as exists elsewhere in
Shannon.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In recognition of the effort and commitment needed for the
successful introduction of new technology it was accepted that
once-off payments could be paid where the basis for such
payments was justifiable and reasonable. These lump sums
varied from staff group to staff group depending on the range
and extent of the commitment and effort needed for the
successful introduction of the technology and work systems.
2. The commercial staff employed in the Shops Division at
Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports were paid once-off lump sums
to facilitate the introduction of new technology requirements
viz scanners, registers, visual display units. The following
payments were made:-
Sales Assistants #330
Stores Assistants #600
Display Staff #660
Other staff groups, - trades, clerical, superintendents,
stores operatives etc. - irrespective of their airport
location were paid equal lump sum payments depending on the
range of new technology, changes in work systems/job
structures, job losses etc. Identical payments, made to sales
assistants, were paid to electricians, fitters and clerical
staff where the technology changes needed and implemented,
required similar effort and commitment.
3. From the outset, the Company accepted that additional
effort and commitment would be necessary, to varying degrees,
from staff for the implementation and operation of new
technology systems. The once-off payments made related to the
commitment and effort required by the various categories of
staff in an equitable manner. In this instance the same lump
sum payments were paid to Shannon sales assistants/stores
assistants and display staff as were paid to identical grades
at Dublin and Cork Airports in respect of the same technology
changes.