Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90667 Case Number: LCR13159 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a pay anomaly for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim and
accordingly rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90667 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13159
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a pay anomaly for one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In October 1988 Aer Lingus and the Unions signed The
Operative New Intake Agreement. An integral part of the
agreement was the abolition of the old scales. The new
scales introduced were as follows:
Old Grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 are now grade A
Old Grades 5 and 6 are now grade B
Old Grade 7 is now grade C
Old Grade 8 is now grade D
The scale of particular relevance to this case is the grade A
scale. This scale is higher than the old operative grade 4
scale and all operatives on the old grades 1 to 4 progress to
the top of the new scale.
2. Prior to the introduction of the new agreement in
October 1988, a particular agreement existed in the Aircraft
Maintenance Section. Aircraft Maintenance Assistants (AMAs)
with one years satisfactory service progressed automatically
from grade 1 to grade 4. This agreement discontinued when
the workers were assimilated onto grade A in 1988. There was
a clause in the new agreement whereby the Company guaranteed
that no workers would lose money as a result of the transfer
onto new scales.
3. The worker here concerned joined the Company on the 10th
August 1987, as a 20-hour cleaner on the Operative grade 1
scale. He accepted the position of Aircraft Maintenance
Assistant (AMA) on the new operative grade (A) scale in
November, 1988. The Union claims that the worker, although
promoted to AMA after the agreement was signed, should be
covered by the anomaly clause as he has been employed in a
permanent capacity with the Company since 10 August 1987.
Under the old system he would have gained Grade 4 status one
year after his promotion. Under the new system this did not
happen and the Union feel that the worker is suffering an
ongoing loss in income as a result. The Company reject the
claim as the old scales and agreement were abolished.
Further the worker was not appointed as an AMA prior to
October 1988 and on that basis there is no claim under the
anomaly clause.
4. No agreement was reached and the matter was referred to
the conciliation service on the 24th September, 1990. A
conciliation conference held on the 30th October, 1990 failed
to resolve the dispute. The matter was referred to a full
Labour Court hearing. The Labour Court investigation took
place on the 17th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had established permanent service with the
Company prior to the New Operative Intake Agreement of
October 1988 and as such he is covered by the guarantees as
contained in the Company's letter of the 9th November, 1987.
2. Under the old operative pay agreement the worker would
have achieved grade 4 status upon completion of 1 years
satisfactory service. Instead he continued on the new grade
A scale and is now being paid less than would have been the
case had the old agreement continued in operation. Cases
such as this were envisaged by both the Company and the
Union when the new agreement was signed. The worker is
therefore covered under the Company's guarantee that Union
members would not lose money as a result of the transfer to
the new scales.
3. The anomalies clause was clearly intended to ensure that
no permanent staff at the time of the transfer would lose out
by the introduction of new scales. The Company's contention
that the clause only applied at the date of transfer is
clearly not in line with the Union's understanding. While it
is true to say that the new max of the grade A scale is
higher than the old grade 4, the worker is, however, at
present at the loss of #11.22 per week as a result of the
transfer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker accepted the position of AMA on the grade A
scale after the agreement on the introduction of the scale
was signed. Prior to this he was a cleaner on the grade 1
scale with no possibility of advancing beyond that scale.
The particular agreement in the Aircraft Maintenance Section
for virtual automatic advancement from grade 1 to grade 4
under the old system did not apply in all sections. The
worker joined this section, fully aware of the application of
the new agreement. It may not have been possible to promote
the worker, had the savings which accrued from the new
agreement not been available.
2. The system of automatic promotion in all the sections to
which it applied ceased when the new agreement came into
force. Concession of this claim may result in consequential
claims from areas where a similar agreement existed e.g.
Cargo or Dublin Station. The anomalies clause was there to
assure staff that no money would be lost by the transfer to
the new scales. The worker then a grade 1 operative
transferred to grade A without any loss of earnings. Any
progression which transpired subsequently must be under the
terms of the new agreement which has been in force since
October 1988.
3. A situation could be invited by the concession of this
claim that every operative would be entitled to claim
compensation, if at any particular time, he could show that
under the old system he could be potentially better off
financially. In fact all operatives of all grades at the
time of the agreement, will be better off as the maxima of
all scales were increased. The Company this year will make
an operating loss of #20m in addition to interest charges of
#15m. This means that the Company is in a major financial
crisis which will have repercussions for all staff interests.
In this context the financial state of the Airline cannot
sustain additional costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not find grounds for concession of the Union's claim and
accordingly rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st January, 1991 Tom McGrath
J.F/M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman