Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90532 Case Number: LCR13125 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 80 workers concerning the Company's policy in relation to the recruitment of temporary staff in Shannon Duty Free Shop.
Recommendation:
5. Having listened to the submissions and arguments of the
parties, the Court is of the view that this case and other related
matters in dispute arise directly from the failure of the parties
to conclude negotiations on new terms for Temporary Staff.
Though each side expresses confidence that there is good prospect
of agreement in the near future, it appears to the Court that
there is an absence of urgency to conclude the matter and that
this situation is detrimental to good Industrial Relations as it
is giving rise to new issues such as that before the Court to-day.
The Court has noted the Company undertaking given at the hearing
that on agreement of the main issue, the Company will ensure that
the earlier pattern of employment of staff under and over 19 years
of age will be re-introduced and maintained.
The Court recommends that the Union accept this undertaking and
that both sides commit themselves to its earliest implementation
through the resolution of the core issue.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90532 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13125
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 approximately 80 workers
concerning the Company's policy in relation to the recruitment of
temporary staff in Shannon Duty Free Shop.
BACKGROUND:
In 1985, an agreement was reached whereby temporary staff under 19
years of age would be paid identical rates of pay irrespective of
the type of work undertaken (Airport Police and Fire Service
excepted). Further agreements were concluded to establish new
rates of pay for staff aged 19 years and over in the Flight
Kitchen operation and Mail Order Division. In February, 1989, the
Company introduced new lower rates of pay for temporary staff aged
19 and over in the Duty Free Shop. The Union claimed that there
was no formal agreement on the introduction of new lower temporary
rates and that the old rates should be restored. The matter was
the subject of a Labour Court hearing and in LCR12869 the Court on
23rd may, 1990, recommended as follows:-
"The Court having considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties recommends that the Union
claim for restoration of the rates of pay for temporary
staff be conceded. These rates to apply pending mutual
agreement between the parties on the rates of pay to be
applicable to temporary staff in the future".
The Company has decided not to employ any further temporary staff
aged 19 and over until a "mutual agreement between the parties on
the rates of pay" is concluded. The Union contends that the
Company policy in hiring only under 19's is blatant discrimination
which is being used to circumvent the Court's earlier
recommendation. The Union claims that the Company should revert
to previous practices and employ temporary staff over a range of
ages. On 10th July, 1990, the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 16th August, 1990 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 30th August, 1990,
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 21st November, 1990, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1985, the Company and Union concluded an agreement on
rates of pay for temporary staff. This agreement has worked
well because the Company never concentrated its hiring on any
particular age group. Some temporary staff have been coming
back for up to 13 years. These staff are very experienced and
are of great assistance to the permanent staff during busy
periods. The Company's action is simply cutting off its nose
to spite its face.
2. Hiring only under 19 year olds may be contrary to the
Employment Equality Act, 1977, insofar as the majority of
females over the age of 19 years who are seeking temporary
employment are married women. On a general basis men over 19
years are interested in seeking permanent positions. Some
temporary staff, both male and female have been coming back
for a number of seasons in the hope that they will eventually
be appointed to permanent positions if the business improved
or if staff need to be replaced. These years have now been
wasted because of the Company's policy.
3. The old policy of hiring on the basis of suitability has
proved successful and there is a pool of experienced staff
available and anxious for employment who cannot be hired if
the Company continue their policy. It will make the Union
very wary of introducing age related wage rates if this abuse
is continued.
4. The Duty Free Shop is the only area in which the under
19 year hiring policy exists and the Union believes that this
is done in an effort to force the Union into accepting low
wage rates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the absence of an agreement on the rates of pay for
temporary staff aged 19 years and over, as is in place in the
Flight Kitchen operation and Mail Order Division, the Company
decided to employ from May, 1990, temporary staff who were
under 19 years of age. At that time the Company had already
engaged a number of temporary staff aged over 19. These staff
were retained throughout the busy period and in fact some are
still employed by the Company.
2. The Union at the Court hearing on 10th April, 1990
(LCR12869 refers), agreed that it was a matter for the Company
to employ temporary staff under 19 years of age. The Company
intends to continue with its current hiring policy in the Duty
Free Shop until discussions in relation to LCR12869 have been
satisfactorily dealt with.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having listened to the submissions and arguments of the
parties, the Court is of the view that this case and other related
matters in dispute arise directly from the failure of the parties
to conclude negotiations on new terms for Temporary Staff.
Though each side expresses confidence that there is good prospect
of agreement in the near future, it appears to the Court that
there is an absence of urgency to conclude the matter and that
this situation is detrimental to good Industrial Relations as it
is giving rise to new issues such as that before the Court to-day.
The Court has noted the Company undertaking given at the hearing
that on agreement of the main issue, the Company will ensure that
the earlier pattern of employment of staff under and over 19 years
of age will be re-introduced and maintained.
The Court recommends that the Union accept this undertaking and
that both sides commit themselves to its earliest implementation
through the resolution of the core issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th December, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman