Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90176 Case Number: LCR12963 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SHANNON FREE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union to have a car concession/allowance applied to Divisional Managers who were promoted and graded at E1 level following the restructuring of the Company in 1987.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is not satisfied that it would be justified in recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90176 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12963
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SHANNON FREE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union to have a car concession/allowance applied
to Divisional Managers who were promoted and graded at E1 level
following the restructuring of the Company in 1987.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, the Government extended the Company's responsibility
for the development of the Mid-West region. The extended remit
resulted in the Company being responsible for all aspects of
tourist promotion and development in the region (previously held
by Bord Failte). The Company also took on responsibility in the
industrial area, for the Mid-West including responsibility for
overseas promotion and new start-ups (previously held by the
Industrial Development Authority). The new mandate resulted in a
restructuring of the Company, with divisional areas being
reorganised on a functional basis. Prior to the reorganisation
there were 14 Divisional Managers. Following the restructuring,
agreed through local discussions with management and Union
representatives, including a job evaluation exercise, 37
functional units were established with a consequential 37
managerial posts. They included the 14 existing Divisional
Managers. The 37 managerial posts were evaluated across three
agreed grades E1, E3B and E3A. In addition to the 14 existing
Divisional Managers (E1) eight other E1's were appointed, with the
remaining posts being filled by E3B and E3A managers. The
original 14 Divisional Managers had a car allowances which
resulted in a car leasing arrangement with the Company. Following
the appointment of the 8 additional E1 managers, the Union sought
to have the car allowance/leasing arrangement applied to them, on
the basis that the concession attaches to that grade. The Company
rejected the Union claim on the grounds that during restructuring
discussions the Company had stated that the car allowance which
applied to existing E1's would not apply to those newly appointed.
Following local discussions the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 23rd May, 1989. It
was the subject of a conciliation conference on 17th October,
1989. As no agreement was reached the Union requested a full
Court hearing. The Company agreed to the investigation on 21st
March, 1990 (efforts to resolve the issue were ongoing). The
Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on 24th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The car concession attaches to the E1 grade.
2. In the discussions with the Company concerning the
restructuring, the Company never stated that the car
concession was being withdrawn. On the contrary it was
clearly understood that under the public service embargo the
Company would be obliged to use existing grades and
remuneration packages.
3. When Function Managers were given their gradings five/six
months after taking up their new positions, the proposal not
to extend the car concession to the new E1's came as a total
surprise. The Company state that the original E1's were "red
circled". This was never agreed with the Union and it is
viewed as grossly unfair because:-
(a) the supposed "red circling" did not take place until
the grades for the Function Managers were established -
months after the Union had agreed to the new structure
and four/five months after the staff had taken on new
responsibilities.
(b) the current situation is a serious embarrassment to the
new E1's - they are holding the most onerous and
responsible Function Manager jobs and, both in-Company
and in dealing with external clients, it is widely known
that the original E1's enjoy the car concession and are
driving new cars. The "new" E1's are seen as inferior
to the original E1's.
(c) the Company has refused to grade the original E1's,
although it is widely felt that many of them have much
less onerous responsibilities than the "new" E1's.
Therefore, the original E1's cannot have been red
circled as under agreed procedures the Company cannot
"red circle" without (i) agreement with the Union and
(ii) regrading of the relevant jobs.
4. The job evaluation system is the official system agreed by
the Company and the Union. The benchmark jobs used for grade
definition were agreed and therefore there is no doubt that
the "new" Function Managers are truly E1's and not any diluted
form of E1.
3. 5. The net cost to the Company of #1,400 per E1 is relatively
minor in view of the E1's status and the total staff cost in
the Company (#6.5 - #7.0m).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Workers promoted to the first Function Manager level in
January, 1988 have been very well rewarded for the additional
duties and responsibilities assigned to them.
2. It was made clear to the Union representatives at the time
of restructuring in December 1987 that the car allowance was a
benefit which could not be extended to newly appointed
managers. The Union did not register any disagreement at the
time. The restructuring was implemented and all the Function
Managers were subsequently promoted receiving substantial
increases in pay and full public service mileage rates.
3. The difference in responsibilities between the first and
second level Function Managers in the current structure would
not warrant the application of the car allowance to the first
level and not to the next. Any concession made to the first
level of Function Managers would (a) create an unjust
differential between the two grades, (b) result in the second
level Function Managers being seriously aggrieved and (c)
give rise to a consequential claim for the further extension
of the car allowance to that level. Any entertainment of this
would give rise to further consequential claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is not satisfied that it would be justified in recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___1st____August,__1990. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman