Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95213 Case Number: LCR14774 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Review of premises cleaning agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties and
taking into account that the agreement as originally drafted was
accepted by the Union, is of the view that the proposals put
forward by the Company in letter dated 8th March, 1995 form a
reasonable response to the Union's claim. The Court accordingly
recommends that these proposals be incorporated into the agreement
and accepted by the Union. The Court, in line with the original
agreement, further recommends that the parties may, if necessary
meet in 12 months time to review the operation of the premises
cleaning section.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95213 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14774
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Review of premises cleaning agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1993, negotiations took place (as part of the
Cahill Plan) at the Labour Relations Commission following
which agreement was reached on premises cleaning. Details
are as follows:-
1. Permanent staff numbers to be 40 in total, including:
2 x 36 hour working Supervisory Grade - Operative B
2 x 30 hour Operative B with Supervisory responsibility
(one in PCB area, one in Hangar 6 area).
4 x Cover staff (2 in HOB/PCB, 2 in Tech/TEAM) to cover
annual leave, sick leave, special leave, etc.
8 x Industrial Cleaners.
2. Workers' areas of responsibility to average between
11,000 to 12,000 square feet. Average daily coverage -
8,500 square feet, to be achieved as follows:
- Bins, ashtrays, toilets, break areas, locker rooms,
showers plus essential areas as determined by
Supervisor: - Daily Cleaning
- Vacuuming/dusting: - Alternate Days
- Spot Cleaning of walls, doors,
ledges, etc: - Weekly Clean
- Spot Cleaning of spillages: - As Required
3. Sick Leave Cover, when quota of 4 "cover" workers used
up:
The Supervisor will decide what is essential cleaning in
each area, and will allocate that work to the remaining
staff in the area on a priority basis. Operational
flexibility will be required where sick leave is high to
ensure that no area is left for a long period without
full cleaning.
4. Industrial Cleaners:
There will be three types of duty:
08.00 - 14.00 Monday to Friday (2 Operatives)
16.00 - 22.00 Monday to Friday (2 Operatives)
12.00 - 18.00 or 08.00 - 14.00, either Saturday to
Wednesday or Thursday to Monday (alternating) (2
Operatives). Plus One Operative - Waste Disposal; One
Operative - Cargo.
It is the intention that Saturday/Sunday cover would be
one operative on 12.00 - 18.00 and one on 08.00 - 14.00.
Staff to be consulted and have input into drawing up of
rosters.
New duty hours for Waste Disposal Operative to be 08.00
- 14.00.
Problems, emergencies, etc to be notified to Premises
Clerical Supervisor.
5. The entire new operation to be reviewed under the aegis
of the LRC at the end of September, 1994.
The agreement formed the framework for the continued
retention and viability of the cleaning function at Aer
Lingus.
In October, 1994 it became clear that the agreement was not
operating satisfactorily and a further conciliation
conference took place at which the following agreement and
addendum was agreed:-
"1. The 1993 agreement to be operated fully. Its operation
to be reviewed after 3 months, jointly and with the
involvement of the Conciliation Service of the
Commission, if this is required by either or both
parties.
2. During the period leading up to the review, the
operation of the agreement to be monitored by local
representatives of staff and management on a regular
basis, but no less regularly than fortnightly.
3. Put in the context of the above, the Company will look
at possible ways, within existing budgetary constraints,
of alleviating the strain caused by long-term sick
leave.
4. In the context of the proposed review, the Company
agrees to examine the employment status of the existing
temporary workers in the light of the circumstances then
existing.
5. On the basis that the above is accepted the Company
should agree to lift the suspensions and not action any
payroll deductions.
ADDENDUM
In the context of the attached proposal, to effect a
settlement and in the unique circumstances, the Company
should agree, in the context of a staff member on long-term
sick leave and on reduced pay or off pay, to one replacement
temporary worker on a 30 hour basis. This is in the context
of the sick leave continuing for a further period of not
less that 2 months. Any further sick leave will be covered,
as agreed by the flexibility clause in Clause 3 of the
October, 1993 agreement, during the review period."
A review of the agreement took place in February/March, 1995.
At a conciliation conference held on 22nd February, 1995 the
Union sought:-
- An increase in staff members from forty to fifty.
- A decrease in workers' areas of responsibility.
- An upgrade of supervisory structure.
- An increase in working hours, in some instances from
thirty to thirty-nine hours.
- Sick leave cover and annual leave on overtime.
At a resumed conciliation conference held on 6th March, 1995
the Company put forward the following proposals:-
"SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE
The current supervisory structure is:
2 x 36 hour Op B
2 x 30 hour Op B
This has been in operation since the Strategy for the
Future Agreement of 1993. In an effort to overcome the
difficulty expressed by the Staff in taking supervisory
instruction from Staff of the same grade, the Company is
proposing that 2 x 36 hour Op B's be re-graded as 2 x 36
hour Op C's to give the following supervisory structure:
2 x 36 hour Op C
2 x 30 hour Op B
The re-grading of B's as C's will be subject to taking
on an enhanced job role as follows:
Operative C's will supervise both Operative B's and
A's and each of these grades (A's and B's) can
report directly to the Operative C's.
Operative C's will take an active role in monitoring
and maintaining standards of work done (including
use of check-lists and other methods of
monitoring)".
The proposals were unacceptable to the Union. As no
agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 3rd March, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 18th May, 1995. A recommendation was issued by
letter on 24th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned, more than any other group of
workers employed by Aer Lingus have been subjected to
constant cuts in staff numbers, resulting in increased
areas to be cleaned. Since 1980 the area covered by
individual cleaners has increased from approximately
3,400 square feet to 12,000 square feet.
2. The workers accepted the terms of the 1993 agreement
under duress. The Company's alternative was to
outsource the cleaning function.
3. In 1991, under the heading of 'Recovery Programme 1991'
the Union entered into an agreement with the Company.
The agreement recognised the contribution made by the
premises cleaners in the 'Trim 1987 Programme' and that
cleaning can best be done by Aer Lingus in-house
cleaning staff. The Company aspired to a cleaning
service of the highest standards. The Company reneged
on this agreement.
4. Since the 1993 agreement, complaints regarding the
standard of cleaning have been ongoing. In attempting
to address the problem management have pressurised the
cleaners. This has caused considerable stress to the
workers concerned.
5. The Union's proposals (details supplied) meet the cost
cutting measures of the Cahill Plan and would leave
staffing levels and supervisory structures at adequate
levels, ensuring cleaning standards are maintained at
acceptable levels.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is satisfied that an acceptable standard of
cleaning can be achieved with staffing of forty. The
1993 agreement, jointly agreed between the Union and Aer
Lingus at the Labour Relations Commission set staff
numbers at forty.
2. In reducing staff numbers, local management put in place
a revised area of responsibility for each cleaner. The
Company recognised that fewer staff would be cleaning
the same area and accepted a corresponding drop in
cleaning tasks. By increasing the duty area, but
reducing the tasks, the new cleaning methods provides a
proper cleaning standard. The industry average is 2,000
- 3,500 square feet per hour.
3. The Company is confident that the key provisions of the
agreement are workable and have been working for a
number of months. It must be clearly understood that
the agreement forms the only basis for the retention of
the premises cleaning function on an in-house basis.
4. The initial view of the Company was to outsource this
function completely. This has been proven as the most
cost-efficient way of premises cleaning by many major
industries in this country.
5. The Company has made a genuine effort to review the
operation of the agreement. The operation must compete
with outside companies to avoid outsourcing. More
staff, more hours and overtime to cover sick leave would
restore the Company to the pre-Cahill Plan situation and
make premises cleaning unviable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties and
taking into account that the agreement as originally drafted was
accepted by the Union, is of the view that the proposals put
forward by the Company in letter dated 8th March, 1995 form a
reasonable response to the Union's claim. The Court accordingly
recommends that these proposals be incorporated into the agreement
and accepted by the Union. The Court, in line with the original
agreement, further recommends that the parties may, if necessary
meet in 12 months time to review the operation of the premises
cleaning section.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.