Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94240 Case Number: LCR14609 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHANNON FREE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the granting of permanent status to 10 'tourist advisers'.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the oral
submissions given at the hearing the Court recommends as follows:-
(A) SFADCo. agree to appoint the seven named contract employees
who have been in full time employment for a considerable
number of years to permanent positions. This will require
the creation of seven permanent posts in the organisation and
the sanction of the Department of Finance for this action.
(B) The method of assimilation on to the permanent scale to be
the subject of local negotiations and agreement taking into
account the terms of the PCW.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94240 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14609
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SHANNON FREE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the granting of permanent status to 10
'tourist advisers'.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Shannon Development (SFADCo) is a non-commercial State
sponsored body with statutory responsibility for
industrial, tourism and rural development within the
Shannon region. In 1987, the Company took over, from a
Company called Shannonside, the operation of a number of
tourist information offices in the midwest.
2. The Company employs eight full-time tourist advisers in
its five year-round offices, one of whom is employed
permanently and the other seven on three year contracts.
The Company also operates eight temporary seasonal
offices and employs thirty seasonal workers during the
peak summer period.
3. In April, 1993, the Company was given departmental
approval to offer two-year fixed term contracts to the
seven non-permanent tourist advisers. The workers
rejected the contracts and submitted a claimed that the
ten advisers be made permanent.
4. The Company rejected the Union's claim and it was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 18th June, 1993 but
no progress was possible. On 26th April, 1994, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place in Limerick on 3rd
November, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking seven permanent posts be created.
The workload warrants their creation. The Company has
rejected the claim not because of any lack of merit in
the claim but because of its inability to convince its
parent Government Department of the need to increase
permanent posts. The Union's agreements are with
Shannon Development and not with a Government
Department.
2. The Company has argued that the precarious nature of the
tourism business will not allow it to make a permanent
commitment to these workers. Tourism activity within
the midwest region is and has been increasing.
3. Unlike their permanent colleagues, the workers,
although employed on a whole time basis, do not have
access to the same pensions, incremental pay scales or
sick-pay scheme. The workers are all female and
relative to colleagues in other tourist regions, they
have lower pay, fewer holidays, poorer conditions and
substantially fewer permanent posts (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is subject to the Public Service embargo on
recruitment which would not allow it to concede the
Union's claim even if it was merited. The Company has
gone as far as to offer two-year fixed-term contracts to
the seven workers but the workers have rejected this
offer.
2. The Company operates its business no differently from
other tourist regions or tourist companies which operate
with a small permanent core staff supplemented by
additional temporary and seasonal staff depending on
customer demand. This approach is necessary because of
the unpredictable and seasonal nature of the tourism
business.
3. The workers' pay and conditions compare favourably with
those of their counterparts employed by other Regional
Tourism Authorities (details supplied). When the
Company took over the Tourist Advisory Service it
received no additional exchequer funding. The offices
have made a cumulative loss of almost #2 million in the
last five years. The Company has to operate on a
commercial basis if it is to continue with its work.
4. The Union's claim is essentially one for increased pay
and conditions. The claim is therefore, cost increasing
and beyond the terms of the PESP and the PCW. In
addition, the seven tourist advisers cannot be viewed in
isolation and the Court must take account of the
knock-on implication for the twenty-four other
non-permanent staff throughout the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the oral
submissions given at the hearing the Court recommends as follows:-
(A) SFADCo. agree to appoint the seven named contract employees
who have been in full time employment for a considerable
number of years to permanent positions. This will require
the creation of seven permanent posts in the organisation and
the sanction of the Department of Finance for this action.
(B) The method of assimilation on to the permanent scale to be
the subject of local negotiations and agreement taking into
account the terms of the PCW.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Evelyn Owens, Court Secretary.