Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91556 Case Number: LCR13497 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AIRMOTIVE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
A claim for additional payments for 41 Technical Supervisors.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties along
with the additional oral evidence presented at the hearing and the
subsequent correspondence.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the importance
of "approval" and the Court has examined how this responsibility
is dealt with within the Company. Since its inception, the
Company has determined its own pay structure based on its own
particular circumstances and in certain instances (e.g.
inspectors) has identified the importance of and made payments
specifically in respect of "approval."
The Court considers that the Union has established grounds to
justify the Company giving similar consideration to "approval" as
exercised by Supervisors. Accordingly the Court recommends that
the parties resume negotiations to determine how and when such
consideration can be implemented having regard to the restrictions
on the parties by the P.E.S.P. and the necessity to ensure that
the terms of P.E.S.P. are not breached.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91556 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13497
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AIRMOTIVE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim for additional payments for 41 Technical Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company provides jet engine overhaul facilities to
domestic and international airlines. It was established in
1979 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Aer Lingus and employs
674 workers.
2. The Unions have brought a claim against the Company on
behalf of 41 technical supervisors who are seeking a
differential over process supervisors by way of an "approvals
payment" for the responsibility of approving finished work.
The claim based on the extra skills and responsibilities
contained in their jobs.
3. In a similar claim which was before the Court in
September, 1989 the Court (L.C.R. 12562) recommended as
follows:-
"Having considered the submissions from the parties, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim,
which if granted would have the effect of breaking the
common scale applicable to all supervisors in the Company".
The claim is being reactivated as a result of the 'approval
payments' which apply in Aer Lingus being extended to Team Aer
Lingus which is another wholly owned subsidiary of Aer Lingus.
4. The claim is rejected by the Company on the basis of it's
independence from Aer Lingus, the establishment of the scales
as a result of L.C.R. 9758 of 1985, Labour Court
recommendation L.C.R. 12562 of 1989 and the claim being
contrary to the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on 6th February, 1991 and a conciliation conference
was held on 19th April, 1991. No resolution was possible and
the dispute was referred to the Court on 22nd October, 1991.
A Labour Court investigation took place on 19th November,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company and Team Aer Lingus are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Aer Lingus. In Aer Lingus and more recently
in Team Aer Lingus, 'approval payments' are paid to technical
supervisors. The technical supervisors in the Company perform
the same function and have similar salary scales.
2. The job of technical supervisors who approve work is a
serious and onerous responsibility, with personal liability
for the workmanship being a factor. In order to carry out the
job of approving work, the workers must ensure that the work
complies with legal requirements. Failure to ensure
compliance has wide ranging implications for the Company and
air travellers. Authority to approve work is given to workers
who have completed training and proved their knowledge
(details supplied). This claim was first made in 1988 and
rejected on the basis of the independence of the Company from
Aer Lingus. The validity of the claim was recently vindicated
by the application of the payment claimed to Team Aer Lingus
employees another wholly owned subsidiary of Aer Lingus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was established in 1979 with the assistance of
the I.D.A.. The Company is separate from Aer Lingus, with
separate terms and conditions of employment. The Unions, in
L.C.R. 9046, on the 24th pay round, made a strong argument in
favour of differentiating between the two organisations and
went on to highlight the distinction between the Companies.
The plus payments which apply at the Airport cannot simply be
applied to the Company of whom Aer Lingus is a customer. This
is particularly so as the payments which apply at the Airport
are historical in context. The scales as presently
constituted were established as a result of L.C.R. 9785 of
1985 and confirmed by L.C.R. 12562 of 1989.
2. Team Aer Lingus is not a new industry. The business which
it carries out was done by Aer Lingus. Only 1% of Airmotive
workers came from Aer Lingus while 1,400 Aer Lingus workers
transferred to Team. The Team workers negotiated that
historical plus payments which they had in Aer Lingus, be
retained. The comparison with the Company is not valid as the
circumstances are entirely different. The majority of
supervisors are, by virtue of their positions within the
organisation required to approved work. The Company
acknowledge this important role and contend that the salary
scale reflects the importance of the positions as confirmed by
L.C.R. 12562.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties along
with the additional oral evidence presented at the hearing and the
subsequent correspondence.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the importance
of "approval" and the Court has examined how this responsibility
is dealt with within the Company. Since its inception, the
Company has determined its own pay structure based on its own
particular circumstances and in certain instances (e.g.
inspectors) has identified the importance of and made payments
specifically in respect of "approval."
The Court considers that the Union has established grounds to
justify the Company giving similar consideration to "approval" as
exercised by Supervisors. Accordingly the Court recommends that
the parties resume negotiations to determine how and when such
consideration can be implemented having regard to the restrictions
on the parties by the P.E.S.P. and the necessity to ensure that
the terms of P.E.S.P. are not breached.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_____________________
19th December, 1991 Chairman.
J.F./J.C.