Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9162 Case Number: LCR13258 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of nine workers employed in the cargo terminal at Dublin Airport for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions of the
parties finds there is no grounds for compensation for loss of
earnings as a consequence of the transfer from permanent nights to
day/shift working.
The Court however considers that in respect of the commitment to
overtime which was continuous the workers concerned should be paid
#23,184 in compensation to be divided amongst them in such a
manner as they consider appropriate.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9162 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13258
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of nine workers employed in the
cargo terminal at Dublin Airport for compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986/87 the Company increased the permanent night shift
roster by 6 workers. The new roster was for 7 nights on and 7
nights off per fortnight. The roster carried a shift premium of
50% and included 7 hours rostered overtime per fortnight paid at
double time. In November, 1990 the Company carried out a review
of its rostering pattern in an effort to achieve greater
efficiency. The Company transferred the 6 workers on the
permanent night shift roster to day/shift duty. The day/shift
duty carries a premium of 20% and does not have any built in
overtime. The Union claims compensation for loss of earnings
equivalent to twice the annual loss of the workers concerned (i.e.
6 permanent night shift workers and 3 relief workers). The
Company rejects the claim. No agreement was reached at local
level discussions and the matter was referred on 4th December,
1990 to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 18th January, 1991 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was then referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Labour
Court investigated the dispute on 28th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Company introduced the new night shift roster it
offered a 50% premium plus guaranteed overtime in order to get
a permanent night crew. The positions were advertised and the
successful applicants considered that the arrangement would be
permanent. It is not acceptable that the Company should
terminate the night shift roster at short notice without
agreement.
2. The elimination of the night shift roster has had a
devastating effect on the earnings of the workers. They had
entered into long-term commitments on the basis that the
roster would be permanent. They now have major financial
problems which may have serious consequences for them.
3. The Company claims that it has a policy not to pay
compensation for loss of earnings. However an important
precedent was established in 1987 when a local level agreement
was reached on compensation for the loss of night shift
allowance at head office (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During 1990 local discussions were held on the question of
rostering requirements throughout the airport terminal. It
was agreed during the discussions that there would be a
reduction in the number of workers engaged on permanent night
shift duty.
2. The workers concerned were not taken off shift work. They
were merely transferred to day shift duty. There is no longer
a requirement to have them engaged on permanent night duty.
3. The Company has a right to transfer workers from day work
to shift work and vice versa. The Company needs flexibility
to change rosters as has been the practice in the past.
Concession of the Union's claim would restrict the Company
when changes in rosters are necessary.
4. The current financial state of the Company and the cargo
business in particular, cannot sustain additional costs. The
Company must seek savings if it is to provide long term
prospects for its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the submissions of the
parties finds there is no grounds for compensation for loss of
earnings as a consequence of the transfer from permanent nights to
day/shift working.
The Court however considers that in respect of the commitment to
overtime which was continuous the workers concerned should be paid
#23,184 in compensation to be divided amongst them in such a
manner as they consider appropriate.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
23rd April, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.