Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90178 Case Number: LCR12874 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION |
A claim by the Union for the employment of two replacement plumbers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court is of the view that the matter which is the subject
of this referral should be dealt with in the context of a further
claim which is presently being examined by the Company and which
the Company has indicated will deal with new manning levels.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim
as presented.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90178 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12874
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim by the Union for the employment of two replacement
plumbers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1981, the Company had a complement of 8 plumbers plus 2
supervisors. In order to clear a back log of work at that time 2
additional plumbers were employed on a temporary basis in 1982.
They were kept in temporary employment up to 1986 when the Union
made a case to the Company for their retention on a full time
basis.
3. The Company engaged a consultant to examine to the maintenance
work, who in his report, recommended that the two temporary
employees be made permanent but that the complement of plumbers
should return to 8 through retirements, resignations etc.
4. Two plumbers retired recently and the Union lodged a claim for
their replacement on the grounds that there is more than enough
work to justify the replacements. The Company rejected the claim
maintaining that there is no agreement to increase the complement
and that the two temporary plumbers were made permanent on the
understanding that the manning level would revert to its original
level through natural wastage.
5. The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 18th January, 1990. A conciliation conference was
held on 26th February, 1990. As no agreement was reached the
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 4th
May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workload for the plumbers has increased significantly
since the consultants report in 1986. Over the past number of
years passenger and traffic records continue to be broken. In
1989 approximately 5 million passengers used the Airport (this
figure does not take into account the number of people who
would be at the Airport to see off and greet passengers).
This has resulted in increased demands on the services
maintained by the plumbers (details supplied to the Court).
2. Over the past number of years there has been an increase
in the use of contractors. This Union was instrumental in
drawing up a charter on the use of contractors which was an
attempt to rationalise the situation i.e. now only registered
contractors employing properly qualified staff are used for
project work. However the Company has used the fact that
there is a shortage of plumbers to allow work normally carried
out by them to go out to contract. This is a situation which
the Union cannot allow to continue.
3. Over the past few years financial and traffic records in
Dublin Airport continue to be broken. This trend continued in
1988 and in the 1988 Annual Report the Chairman stated it was
a year of major developments for Aer Rianta. Profit before
tax was #23.18 million of which #18.54 million was invested in
construction related projects. Freight traffic tonnage has
also increased substantially. It is anticipated that future
developments will continue to improve the facilities and
services at Dublin Airport. It is anticipated that from 1989
to 1993 in excess of #100 million will be spent on projects,
the nett effect of which will be increased demand on
maintenance work especially for plumbers.
4. In its failure to replace the two jobs the Company is not
meeting its social obligations under the Programme for
National Recovery under which a clear commitment was given
that the Government would actively encourage and facilitate
State companies to develop and diversify their economic job
creating activities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company is satisfied that it has fully honoured its
commitment to the Union arising from the consultants
recommendation and that there are no grounds for replacement
of what were effectively two supernumerary employees.
2. Union/Company agreements clearly state that "manpower
levels will be determined by management...." (details supplied
to the Court). The determination of manpower levels is
clearly, therefore, a matter lying within the prerogative of
the Company.
3. The Union has also submitted a claim for pay increases of
up to #50 per week per employee based on a pay relationship
with Aer Lingus. The payments in Aer Lingus are based on a
mutual sharing of favourable labour efficiency variances.
While the Company accepts there is no linkage between the two
claims, it must be pointed out that the Union's confidence in
being able to fund payments of this magnitude through labour
efficiency, clearly refutes any perceived need for additional
staffing. However in examining this claim, the Company will
be looking into the manning levels of all its craft workers.
4. The Company is satisfied that there is no need for
additional staff in this area, and views the claim as
extremely serious as the consequences of its concession would
effectively mean that the Company would no longer have control
over its fixed payroll costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court is of the view that the matter which is the subject
of this referral should be dealt with in the context of a further
claim which is presently being examined by the Company and which
the Company has indicated will deal with new manning levels.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim
as presented.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________________
30th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.