Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95514 Case Number: LCR15012 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
10% Approval Payment
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties, does not find there is merit in the claim.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95514 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15012
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AIRMOTIVE IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 10% Approval Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aer Lingus,
established in 1979, which provides jet engine overhaul
facilities for aircraft worldwide. It employs a workforce of
435. The claim for a 10% approval payment is on behalf of
approximately 80 lead craftsmen and inspectors who are
obliged to exercise approvals as part of their duties.
Following a dispute in 1984 in relation to the duties and
responsibilities of lead mechanics, the Irish Productivity
Centre (I.P.C.) was engaged as an independent assessor to
examine their role. The report recommended that in addition
to a 10% differential already being paid to lead craftsmen, a
further payment of 4% should be applied. Inspectors were to
remain on a 10% differential. The Company maintains that
approval responsibilities were included in the
recommendation, while the Union disagrees.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 21st July, 1995.
Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 4th September, 1995 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on 15th November, 1995, the
earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3.1. At the Company's inception in 1979 a pay structure was agreed
which paid inspectors and lead craftsmen 110% of basic wage,
while supervisors earned 120%. Approval payments were not a
factor at that time.
2. In December 1991 a Labour Court hearing (LCR13497 refers) was
held, which recognised the importance of approvals being
carried out by supervisors, who subsequently received a 10%
increase for approval responsibilities.
3. In June 1993 the Joint Aviation Authority introduced a new
quality system - Joint Aviation Regulation 145 - which
stipulated that all lead mechanics and inspectors become
approved persons within two years. The last lead craftsman
was approved in September 1995, having being employed by the
Company for ten years.
4. The use of approval stamps is a very serious and onerous
responsibility, with personal liability for workmanship being
a major factor. Failure to ensure that the work complies
with legal requirements has wide-ranging implications for
both the Company and air travellers. The workers'
counterparts in other Aer Lingus subsidiaries receive
approval payments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Since the establishment of the Company in 1979 a 10%
differential has been paid to leads and inspectors in respect
of liability for approval. In 1984 an independent assessor,
the I.P.C., recommended an increase of 4% be paid to leads
for additional responsibilities while inspectors were to
remain on 10%. The report confirmed that the role of lead
was to "Check and approve all completed work at the
appropriate stages". The Group of Unions accepted the I.P.C.
report.
2. In 1991 the Unions brought a claim to the Labour Court for
10% approval payments for supervisors. They contended that
inspectors were in receipt of a 10% differential in respect
of liability for approval and claimed parity for supervisors.
They now claim that the differential is not for approvals.
3. The Managing Director has ultimate responsibility to ensure
that the Company meets the quality and airworthiness
standards required by the regulatory authorities, from whom
the Company requires approval. Although each department is
responsible for its own work, a Quality Assurance Department
exists to safeguard the quality of work being carried out.
An Approvals Board is also in place to assess leads and
inspectors.
4. The claim is clearly in breach of the PCW and concession
would have a major detrimental impact upon wage stability in
the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties, does not find there is merit in the claim.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
D.G./A.K. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.