Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91240 Case Number: AD9158 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against a recommendation of a Rights Commissioner (C.W. 142/91) in a claim by former senior cabin crew members for retention of their senior pay differential.
Recommendation:
11. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that any change in the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation is warranted. The Court therefore
decides that the Recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91240 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5891
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against a recommendation of a Rights Commissioner (C.W.
142/91) in a claim by former senior cabin crew members for
retention of their senior pay differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The grading witin the Cabin Crew Section of the Flight
Services Department is as follows;
(i) Cabin Crew Member, (generally referred to as AH).
(ii) Senior Cabin Crew Member (generally referred to as SN).
(iii) Supervisor.
3. Since 1980 Cabin Crew Members can apply (bid system) for the
Senior and Supervisory positions on routes of their choice.
Successful applicants cannot apply to change routes unless they
relinquish the position to which they are promoted.
4. In 1984, 1986, 1988 a number of Senior Cabin Crew Members
where transferred to routes as Cabin Crew Members were allowed to
retain their Senior Cabin Crew Member's salary. Their salary
increments were frozen until the Cabin Crew Member rate exceeded
their salaries. The above arrangements were negotiated and agreed
for each individual. The incremental scale for Senior Cabin Crew
Members has been replaced (1988/1989) by a fixed differential
being paid on the Cabin Crew Member scale.
5. An agreement exists on a transfer system for Senior Cabin Crew
Members. In 1990, 14 Senior Cabin Crew Members succeeded in their
application for transfers to other routes. The Company agreed
that, had the agreement on the transfer of Seniors been in place
at date of their applications, eight would have retained their
Senior's salaries. The Company was willing to apply the agreement
to those eight. The Union lodged a claim, on the ground of
precedent, for the other six. The Company rejected the agreement.
The Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner. The
Rights Commissioner found and recommended:-
"FINDINGS
I believe that the agreement reached in March, 1990 will
prove of advantage to both sides. After a careful study of
the documents submitted I consider that the Company position
is reasonable in the circumstances. I note that the Company
has delayed payment of the senior transfer differential to
the 8 persons concerned pending the resolution of this
dispute, and he recommended as follows:
I recommend that the 6 named CCMs' (16th January, 1991) are
not entitled to the differential, and that the Company pays
the 8 named persons on the understanding that this completes
all claims relating to the complete adoption of the 1990
system."
6. The Union appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 26th June, 1991.
7. The Company applied the terms of the Rights Commissioners
recommendation to the eight who would have been covered by the
agreement.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The appellants should be allowed retain their Senior
salaries because 11 of 12 Seniors who transferred between 1984
and 1990, retained them and the agreement on the transfer of
seniors was not in place when they made their applications.
The Company hold that the agreement will not apply until
vacancies are next filled. The appellants contend that the
agreement is still being negotiated.
2. There will be no consequential claims if the appeal is
upheld. The next transfers will be covered by the agreement.
3. The six former Seniors are working alongside other former
Seniors who retained their Senior salaries.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Union asked that the terms of the senior transfer
agreement be applied to the 1990 applications.
2. The Union are seeking to have conditions applied to the
six which were not applied before. If the appeal is upheld it
will create a precedent which will result is consequential
claims.
3. If voluntary down grading creates extra costs there is no
option but to abandon the agreement.
DECISION:
11. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that any change in the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation is warranted. The Court therefore
decides that the Recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
23rd July, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.