Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94168 Case Number: AD9440 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SIPTU |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW94/90.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral arguments put forward at the hearing. The factual
position before the re-organisation was that the claimants were on
a grade and pay scale below that of the Foreman. Accordingly,
when the Foreman position became vacant at level "D", it was
appropriate that the position should be advertised and that the
claimants should apply in the normal way. While the Court
understands the claimants' concern at the loss of status which
resulted from their non-selection for the job of foreman and the
abolition of their previous job, this situation is an inherent
danger in the flattening of structures.
The Court considers that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
is appropriate in the circumstances, and accordingly rejects the
appeal and decides that the recommendation be upheld.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94168 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES AER LINGUS
and
TWO WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW94/90.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company, in an effort to secure competitiveness and
effectiveness in the future, proposed an extensive range of
changes. Part of these changes involved an integration of
functions and a "flattening" of supervisory structures.
Conciliation conferences (involving the Labour Relations
Commission, the Company and the Union) regarding the
restructuring of the Aircraft Cleaning Section were held on
27th and 29th October, 1993. An agreement was reached on 11th
November, 1993.
2. The dispute concerns the advertising by Staff Vacancy
Notice (SVN) of two positions of Duty Supervisor, Grade D in
the Aircraft Cleaning Section. The post of Duty Supervisor,
Grade D resulted from the coupling of the functions of Duty
Controller, Grade C and Foreman, Grade D. The Union claims
that the two workers concerned, (who held the posts of
Cleaning Controller, incorporating the functions of Supervisor
and Foreman), should not have had to apply for a job which
they already held, albeit under a new title and grade. Two
other workers were appointed to the posts.
3. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's
service and a hearing was held on 7th March, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union accepts the persons selected as
Duty Supervisors by the Company in this dispute".
4. The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on 16th March, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 4th May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Agreement relating to the Aircraft Cleaning Section does
not state that a new post of Duty Supervisor, Grade D was
being created by combining the functions of the Cleaning
Controller and Foreman or that it would be advertised by a
Staff Vacancy Notice (S.V.N.). In other sections of the
Company, e.g., Loading Section, it was clearly stated that new
posts would be created and advertised by S.V.N.
2. The two workers concerned are fully qualified for the
post of Duty Supervisor, Grade D and should not have had to
apply for the positions.
3. Six vacancies for the position of Duty Supervisor, Grade
D were advertised. The two workers concerned were reluctant
to apply for the jobs but were assured by the Company that it
was only a formality and that their appointments would be
guaranteed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Agreement to the change in the supervisory structure was
achieved under the auspices of the Labour Relations
Commission. The new position of Duty Supervisor, Grade D is
considerably different from the previous duty of Controller.
There is much greater emphasis on direct ramp operations
supervision.
2. The grading structure in the section is A-B-C-D.
Promotion to grades C and D is by seniority/suitability. All
promotions to grade D are on the basis of selection following
competition, and are advertised by a Staff Vacancy Notice.
This applied to the dispute in question.
3. All applicants were treated fairly and the Union has not
disputed this. The most suitable applicants were chosen. The
two workers concerned have retained their positions as
Leadcleaners, Grade C. They have been offered the position of
Shiftleader, Grade C but have declined to take up the offer.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral arguments put forward at the hearing. The factual
position before the re-organisation was that the claimants were on
a grade and pay scale below that of the Foreman. Accordingly,
when the Foreman position became vacant at level "D", it was
appropriate that the position should be advertised and that the
claimants should apply in the normal way. While the Court
understands the claimants' concern at the loss of status which
resulted from their non-selection for the job of foreman and the
abolition of their previous job, this situation is an inherent
danger in the flattening of structures.
The Court considers that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
is appropriate in the circumstances, and accordingly rejects the
appeal and decides that the recommendation be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th May, 1994 ----------------
C. O'N/U.S. Chairman