Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90422 Case Number: LCR13124 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of four catering storemen at Shannon Airport for an increase in wages.
Recommendation:
5. In the absence of any established relativity for this group of
workers the Court recommends that the Union claim be dealt with by
assessment as proposed by the Company. The Court also recommends
that a Union input be taken into account in the assessment and
that details of the basis of the final outcome be provided to the
Union.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90422 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13124
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of four catering storemen at
Shannon Airport for an increase in wages.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the early 1970's the Sales and Catering organisation at
Shannon Airport were integrated with the Company. To accomplish
the integration lengthy negotiations took place with the Union and
concluded with an "Agreement on Productivity, Working Conditions
and Salary Scales" for catering staff in 1976. Under this
Agreement the rates of pay for Storemen and the relationship with
all other catering staff throughout the Company were clearly
established. In 1983 the Company ceased their direct involvement
in the catering functions at Dublin Airport. These activities
were contracted out. The Union contends that the catering section
at Shannon Airport were always paid in line with their
counterparts at Dublin Airport (i.e. Chefs, Barmen, Waiters,
Porter/Storemen and Catering Attendants). The Union says that the
Catering Storemen no longer have a relationship with their
counterparts in Dublin as a result of the concessioning of the
Dublin operation. The Union claims that they should have a link
with staff in Aer Lingus who do similar work. The claim was
rejected by the Company and on 19th May, 1990, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
4th July, 1990 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
12th July, 1990, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 21st November, 1990, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the years the Storemen had a direct relationship
with their counterparts in Dublin, but this is no longer there
since catering in Dublin is contracted out, as it is in Cork.
There is still a relationship between the Chefs and Barmen
with Tradesmen in Aer Lingus, so it is logical that Storemen
should have some link with staff in Aer Lingus who do similar
work.
2. The Company employ Storemen in the Clothing/Stationery
and Maintenance Stores who are paid a lot more than the
Catering Storemen. The Company also employs other Storemen in
the Catering Division, based in the Flight Kitchen who do
similar work but are paid considerably more. A comparison of
the rates shows the considerable differences in pay rates.
Catering Storemen #142-#173 x 7 increments
Flight Kitchen #150-#213 x 8 increments
Catering Sub-Storeman (Aer Lingus) #149-#250 x 28
increments (First 8 increments are age related).
Clothing/Stationery/Maintenance Storemen #200-#226 x 9
increments. (Exclusive of shift premia).
3. The Clothing/Stationary/Maintenance Storemen and the Aer
Lingus Catering Storemen have job ranking systems. The
Catering Storemen hereconcerned have no formal system as they
are a stand-alone group and, as such there is nobody outside
the groups named with whom they can be compared. Most other
groups in the Company have a direct relationship with similar
grade in Aer Lingus so their pay rates move on a consistent
basis. The Catering Storemen should be linked to their
counterparts in Aer Lingus or at least the pay difference
should be eliminated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The positions of Catering Storeman were assessed, at the
Union's request in 1985. This resulted in a new incremental
scale with an increase of #4 per week at the maximum point.
The Storemen's rate of pay has been adjusted in accordance
with the terms of all previous National Wage Type Agreements
and the current P.N.R. In addition they received an Added
Value Bonus of 7.5% in 1989 and will receive a similar bonus
this year.
2. The Company has offered to have the positions assessed
in the same manner as in 1985. The Union have rejected this
offer, presumably on the grounds that the duties and functions
carried out by the Storemen have not changed in any
significant way since the 1985 assessment.
3. The 1976 Agreement is a stand-alone agreement and never
had a parity of wages with any other group of staff internally
or externally. All internal relationships that existed in the
1970's and early 1980's were discounted by agreement, when a
once-off lump sum and incremental scale improvements were
implemented in 1982.
4. The Company is prohibited under the P.N.R. from
considering claims of this nature. The P.N.R. also prohibits
the Union from lodging cost increasing claims of this nature
on the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the absence of any established relativity for this group of
workers the Court recommends that the Union claim be dealt with by
assessment as proposed by the Company. The Court also recommends
that a Union input be taken into account in the assessment and
that details of the basis of the final outcome be provided to the
Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th December, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman