Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91313 Case Number: LCR13329 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: AER RIANTA - and - AER RIANTA CRAFT UNIONS |
Pay parity for 31 craft supervisors.
Recommendation:
3. The Court make the following recommendations to the parties as
a basis for resolving the present dispute:
1. There should be an immediate resumption of normal working.
2. That the discrepancy in the rates of pay be eliminated on
a personal basis with immediate effect.
3. That the issue of parity be the subject of an early Labour
Court hearing.
4. That in the event of the issue of parity at 3 above being
recommended in favour of the Union the rate of pay of
supervisors will be determined in accordance with that
parity.
5. That in the event that the issue of parity at 3 above
being recommended in favour of the Company the parties
shall discuss arrangements for the self financing of the
rates of pay.
The Court considered the views of the parties regarding the use of
the machinery under the agreement between the Company and the
Union.
It is the view of the Court that the issues in this dispute should
have been dealt with in accordance with the machinery provided in
the agreement for the resolution of disputes, before any
industrial action was taken (26.5 refers).
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91313 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13329
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
AER RIANTA CRAFT UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Pay parity for 31 craft supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1967 an agreement on productivity, working conditions and
salary scales, for skilled tradesmen was entered into by the
"Company" and the Unions. The "Company" was the collective name
given to Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus in that agreement. In 1989 the
rates of pay for supervisors in Aer Lingus were adjusted with a
re-construction of the grades concerned. The Unions claim that
these increases should also apply to 31 craft supervisors in Aer
Rianta as pay parity exists between the supervisory grades of both
companies under the 1967 agreement. The Company (i.e. Aer Rianta)
rejects the claim. The dispute was not resolved at local level
discussions and the Unions served notice of industrial action on
4th June, 1991 with an expiry date of 19th June, 1991. On 17th
June, 1991 a conciliation conference was held under the auspices
of the Labour Relations Commission at which agreement on the issue
was not reached. The Labour Court, following consultation with
the Labour Relations Commission, investigated the dispute under
Section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 20th June,
1991. The Court issued a recommendation by letter on 20th June,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1967 agreement applies to both Aer Rianta and Aer
Lingus. Since then pay parity has existed. Over the years
the Labour Court has endorsed the relationship in a number of
recommendations. The Company is in breach of the 1967
agreement by not maintaining pay parity between the 31 craft
supervisors in Aer Rianta and their counterparts in Aer
Lingus.
2. The Unions are prepared to discuss productivity and other
changes proposed by the Company provided there are no job
losses or that repugnant jobs (i.e. jobs not relevant to the
supervisor grade) are not part of the discussions. The
discussions can only take place when pay parity under the 1967
agreement is restored to craft supervisors.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1967 agreement makes no reference to or provision for
parity of salaries between the Company and Aer Lingus. The
Company's unwillingness to concede increases in pay which were
conceded in Aer Lingus cannot be considered to be a breach of
the 1967 agreement.
2. Article 26 of the 1967 agreement provides procedures for
the settlement of grievances and disputes. The Union should
have followed these procedures which provide for referral of
disputes to the Labour Court for a ruling before taking
industrial action.
3. Since 1967 Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus have separated and
have their own respective management structures. Management
of the two companies negotiate separately on pay and
conditions. It is unacceptable that Aer Rianta should be
expected to implement agreements negotiated by Aer Lingus.
4. The Company is willing to enter into negotiations on a
self-financiing package which would go some way towards
meeting the aspirations of the craft supervisors. There
should be a return to normal working and the issue of pay
parity for craft supervisors should be dealt with through the
procedures in the 1967 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court make the following recommendations to the parties as
a basis for resolving the present dispute:
1. There should be an immediate resumption of normal working.
2. That the discrepancy in the rates of pay be eliminated on
a personal basis with immediate effect.
3. That the issue of parity be the subject of an early Labour
Court hearing.
4. That in the event of the issue of parity at 3 above being
recommended in favour of the Union the rate of pay of
supervisors will be determined in accordance with that
parity.
5. That in the event that the issue of parity at 3 above
being recommended in favour of the Company the parties
shall discuss arrangements for the self financing of the
rates of pay.
The Court considered the views of the parties regarding the use of
the machinery under the agreement between the Company and the
Union.
It is the view of the Court that the issues in this dispute should
have been dealt with in accordance with the machinery provided in
the agreement for the resolution of disputes, before any
industrial action was taken (26.5 refers).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
22nd July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.