Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95463 Case Number: LCR15037 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Restoration of differential for cabin managers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
and arguments put forward by both parties and has also considered
the additional information furnished subsequent to the hearing.
The Court accepts the Company's expressed view that retaining
relativity as the sole basis for awarding an increase is not
sustainable.
In particular in this instance the claimants' relativity was only
in existence for a very short period.
The Court accordingly examined the position of the Cabin Manager
post Cahill Plan vis a vis Seniors and has concluded that there is
no basis on which it could recommend concession of the claim.
Should any alteration in the responsibilities of the Cabin managers
be introduced it is open to the Union to pursue a claim under the
agreed procedures.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95463 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15037
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Restoration of differential for cabin managers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Prior to the introduction of the "Cahill Plan" Aer
Lingus cabin crew worked two distinct routes, Europe
and Transatlantic (T/A) with different pay structures
on each. The different structures developed over time
as the services changed on each route. The cabin
manager on the T/A route had a 1.5 unit pay differential
over the senior cabin crew member, while the
differential on the European route for senior grades
and supervisory grades was 1 unit.
2. As a result of the "Cahill Plan" in 1993 the senior
grade on the T/A route and European route were merged
following Union agreement. The agreement provided for
an extra .5 unit pay differential for the senior grade
as a result of the extra productivity achieved. The
Union wants the 1.5 unit differential restored to the
cabin manager grade. The Company rejected the Union's
claim. It stated that the differential for the Senior
cabin member was agreed under the "Cahill Plan".
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 31st
March, 1995 and 11th June, 1995. As no agreement was
possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on 8th August, 1995 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 7th November, 1995. (the
earliest date suitable to both sides).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pay differential of 1.5 units which cabin managers
had above the senior grade should be maintained as had
been the practice in the past. It was assumed by the
Union, following the negotiations under the "Cahill
Plan" that the differential would be maintained.
2. The cabin manager is the most senior flying grade and
should be recognised by the company as such. The cabin
managers feel that the company no longer recognise the
contribution they have made over the years to the
company.
3. The cost of conceding the claim would be negligible.
There would be no knock-on effects beyond the Flight
Services Department into the rest of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The increased differential for Transatlantic (T/A)
services was conceded on the basis that there is now no
distinction between T/A and the European routes and a
senior is now required to fly both routes. The
differential paid is a rate for the job done and not a
differential above the subordinate grades.
2. The Company also refutes the Union's claim that
differentials had been maintained in the past. There
has always been a link with change and productivity.
3. The claim was not raised by the Union in the course of
negotiations under the "Cahill Plan". It was a year
after the conclusion of the discussions before the
claim was made.
4. The Company is concerned about the knock-on effects
this claim could have if it were conceded. The "Cahill
Plan" gave the Company an opportunity to operate on a
more efficient and cost effective footing. The Company
cannot deviate from the agreed terms of the "Cahill
Plan" which the Government and the European Union
agreed to.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
and arguments put forward by both parties and has also considered
the additional information furnished subsequent to the hearing.
The Court accepts the Company's expressed view that retaining
relativity as the sole basis for awarding an increase is not
sustainable.
In particular in this instance the claimants' relativity was only
in existence for a very short period.
The Court accordingly examined the position of the Cabin Manager
post Cahill Plan vis a vis Seniors and has concluded that there is
no basis on which it could recommend concession of the claim.
Should any alteration in the responsibilities of the Cabin managers
be introduced it is open to the Union to pursue a claim under the
agreed procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./U.S. -----------
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.