Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92348 Case Number: LCR13708 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CORRIB AIRPORT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Pay and conditions.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the Union's claim in the light of
conditions currently prevailing at the airport and the financial
information supplied. It is of the opinion that the terms set out
in the I.R.O.s letter of 12th May, 1992 are the best attainable in
the circumstances. The Court, therefore, recommends that these be
accepted. The Court further recommends that when negotiations
next begin, the parties give priority to the introduction of some
payment in respect of the unsocial hours worked by a number of the
staff.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92348 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13708
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CORRIB AIRPORT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which employs 19 people was purchased by the
Galway Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 1983. In the period
1986/89 a new longer runway was built and in 1988 scheduled
flights to Dublin and London commenced. A new terminal building
was opened in 1990. In December, 1991/January, 1992 five
full-time staff were made redundant. In February, 1991 the
workers concerned in the dispute joined the Union. The Union
claims that the worker's rates of pay and conditions of employment
are not consistant with similar workers in similar employment. In
January, 1992 the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Following three conciliation conferences a set of
proposals were drawn up and recommended for acceptance. The
proposals are as follows:
1. Basic Pay - to be adjusted as follows:
(a) Ramp Staff/Ground Crew #170 per week
(b) Check-in Staff #160 per week
(c) Duty Officers #190 - #205
(the higher rate is personal to the present holder).
2. Overtime - to be calculated on a weekly basis from date
of acceptance.
3. Holidays - 18 days from 1st January, 1992 and 20 days
from 1 July, 1992.
4. 39 Hour Week - agreed in principle; to be discussed at
local level.
5. Public Holidays - Double time to be paid for hours
worked.
6. Call-Out Allowance -
(a) Call-out after midnight will be paid at double time.
A minimum of two hours double time will be paid. Payment
will be made in the wages for the week in which it
arises.
7. (b) Call-out before midnight will attract a minimum
payment of two hours at double time. Any time in excess
of two hours will be paid at time and a half up to
midnight. After midnight double time applies. This rate
applies to staff who are on rest days or who have
finished their day's work a minimum of three hours prior
to call-out. Payment will be made in the wages for the
week in which it arises.
(c) Call-out more than three hours prior to normal
starting time will attract a minimum of two hours at time
and a half.
8. Shop Stewards Course - agreed on the basis of one person
at a time, subject to operational requirements.
9. The parties to enter into discussions on a comprehensive
agreement within the next two months.
10. Sick Pay - As per company letter dated 30th March, 1992.
11. The above arrangements to apply for a one year period
from 1st May, 1992; the position to be reviewed again in
May, 1993 without commitment on either side.
12. The above is put forward as a package and is deemed to be
withdrawn if rejected by either side.
The workers rejected the proposals in a secret ballot vote. The
main reason for the rejection of the proposals was the offer on
basic pay and shift allowance. The Union's position is that a
basic rate of #190 across the board for a 39 hour week and a shift
allowance for workers working unsocial hours should be paid. As
no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 12th June, 1992. The Court hearing took place on
26th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The threat by management to declare most of the permanent
workers redundant and substitute part-time working following
the rejection of the proposals was most unhelpful and is not
consistant with good industrial relations practice.
2. Consideration must be given to the varying duties and
responsibilities of the staff, and the special training that
is necessary for the effective running of a modern airport
which covers the whole area from Health and Safety, the
handling of dangerous substances, training in fire fighting
and security at the airport.
3. The Union accepts that the Company is going through a
difficult trading period. However, the Company should not
expect its employees, who have co-operated in giving greater
flexibility and commitment following the recent redundancies,
to accept low wages. The workers have not received an
increase for over two years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The number of passengers using the airport increased
substantially in the early years of scheduled flights from
1988 to 1990. In 1991 a fall of about 20% in passenger
numbers was recorded. This fall was due to the general
decline in air travel resulting from the Gulf war and
difficult economic conditions in the U.S. and U.K.
2. In 1992 Aer Arran which operated out of Galway relocated
its services to a new airport in Inverin, to service the Arran
Islands.
3. The critical difficulties which the Company is
experiencing are driven by the fall in the volume of air
traffic. Currently the airport has one Ryanair and two Aer
Lingus flights daily. This is a drop of 60% from last year.
This reduction in services and the loss of Aer Arrann
business, has resulted in a severe drop of income and
consequential deterioration in the cash position which is now
critical.
4. The Union's demands in the circumstances are extremely
excessive. They seem to be under the impression that the
Company can fund any and all of their demands. The Company
has made a loss, continues to make a loss and, given the
recent market condition of the airlines, the prospects look
bleak in the short and medium term.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the Union's claim in the light of
conditions currently prevailing at the airport and the financial
information supplied. It is of the opinion that the terms set out
in the I.R.O.s letter of 12th May, 1992 are the best attainable in
the circumstances. The Court, therefore, recommends that these be
accepted. The Court further recommends that when negotiations
next begin, the parties give priority to the introduction of some
payment in respect of the unsocial hours worked by a number of the
staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
13th July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.