Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93409 Case Number: LCR14203 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN AIRLINE CATERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim by the Union for an increase in shift premia.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
is satisfied that the claim as made by the Union is cost
increasing and accordingly comes within the terms of the P.E.S.P.
The Court therefore cannot recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93409 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14203
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN AIRLINE CATERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim by the Union for an increase in
shift premia.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in April, 1991 and is part of the
Scandinavian Air Services (S.A.S.) Group of companies. Its main
function is the provision of in-flight meals for airlines
operating at Dublin Airport. The claim, which is on behalf of
approximately 100 workers, is for increases in shift allowances,
as follows:
SHIFT CURRENT ALLOWANCE ALLOWANCE SOUGHT
Early, mid, late 10% 25%
Night Shift 10% 35%
Permanent Night Work 35% 50%
The Union is also seeking a Saturday supplement of #6.50 and a
Sunday Supplement of #8.50. The Company rejected the Union's
claim. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
on the 29th of April, 1993, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of July,
1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The dispute was investigated by the Court on the 6th
of September, 1993 (the earliest date convenient to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of S.A.S., a highly successful
international airline carrier. According to its Annual Report
the catering division of S.A.S. has shown an increase in
revenue of 13% with profits almost doubled. (Revenue - #538
million; profits - #23 million).
2. The Dublin operation is a successful, expanding operation
and has recently signed contracts with Logan Air and the
transatlantic airline Translift.
3. The shift premia presently paid by the Company are
considerably below the national norm (details supplied to the
Court).
4. The shift premia compare badly to those of the Company's
only competitor at Dublin Airport (details supplied to the
Court).
5. Shift-work is detrimental to the health and welfare of
workers and those who work shift are deserving of greater
reward than they are currently receiving.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traditionally the catering trade does not provide for
shift-payments. The Catering Joint Labour Committee, which
applies in this case, makes no provision for shift-payment.
2. The payment arrangements currently in place are generous
and in line with those paid by Dublin Airport Restaurants.
3. The Company is experiencing operating and financial
difficulties (details supplied to the Court).
4. The business is extremely volatile by nature. The Company
is subject to keen competition and is exposed to the
uncertainty at Dublin Airport and in the air transport
business generally. Recently the Company lost the contracts
for AlItalia and Sabena, two of the world's major airlines.
While it has replaced some of this business through Ryanair
and Translift Airlines, these are budget airlines and profit
margins are extremely narrow.
5. Concession of the claim could result in job losses. The
Company has expanded its workforce from 40 in 1991 to over 100
today. However, with continuing financial losses, every
effort has to be made to control costs.
6. Finally, the claim is clearly cost-increasing and in
breach of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.). The Company is currently in the second phase of
P.E.S.P. with the third phase due from October, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
is satisfied that the claim as made by the Union is cost
increasing and accordingly comes within the terms of the P.E.S.P.
The Court therefore cannot recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
27th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.