FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER RIANTA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR14000 concerning a reduction in the working week from 40 to 39 hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 235 workers who are employed in the Airport Police and Fire Service (APFS) at Dublin Airport. In 1992, the Union submitted a claim for reduction in the working week from 40 to 39 hours as provided for under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (PNR). The claim was rejected by the Company. The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court investigation. In February, 1993, the Court issued LCR14000 which recommended as follows:
The Court ............. considers that the claim for a reduction in working time should be deferred at this time.
The Company should adjust the overtime divisor to 1/39 ths as applicable in Aer Lingus".
Subsequently, the Company adjusted the overtime divisor to 1/39 ths. The Union resubmitted the claim to the Company for a reduction in the working week. Management rejected the claim. The Union sought to refer the issue to a conciliation conference of the Labour Relations Commission but the Company was unwilling to attend a conciliation conference. In May, 1996 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held on the 18th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The APFS is a 24 hour, 365 day continuous operation. The workers concerned are obliged to be on duty from clock in to clock out. This requirement is regularly enforced by the imposition of discipline. While breaks are paid for, the break is an integral part of working time.
2. The employees concerned work either 8 or 12 hour shifts. They are required to be at post at the designated shift start time and may not leave post unless and until relieved. This requires attendance at the clocking point 5 - 10 minutes before and after shift start time. Unlike other employments which have a built-in grace period, an APFO "on the clock time" is usually 20 minutes per day longer than "paid time". The workers concerned may not leave their post without permission.
3. When relieved from post for a meal break, APFS workers must report to the break room as they are at all times still on duty. They cannot leave the break area without first seeking permission and must advise where they will be. They may not leave the airport as they are required to be on duty.
4. Sergeants do not have any designated break times. They are taken when, and if, time allows. Breaks are often missed and regularly shortened.
5. Because of the restrictions applied to breaks in the APFS, they clearly count as working time within the PNR.
6. The Company has traded with significant profitability for the past few years and can afford the cost of the claim.
7. Shiftworkers with paid meal breaks throughout industry have had the 39 hour week applied to them. It has also been applied to workers in similar situations in the Public Service, e.g. Dublin Fire Brigade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The net working week for members of the APFS is 32.5 hours. Therefore, concession of a reduction in their working hours would be completely at variance with the "Framework Document" on the reduction in working hours which clearly states that the agreement applies to "employees whose normal working week is at or above 40 hours".
2. The Company has adjusted the overtime divisor from 40 to 39 hours as recommended by the Court in LCR14000.
3. The probability of a meal break interruption is relatively low and any such loss is compensated for.
4. Operatives in Aer Lingus with whom workers in the APFS claim relativity have not had a reduction in their working hours but their overtime divisor has been adjusted as is the case with workers in Aer Rianta.
5. The annual leave entitlement of the workers concerned is significantly in excess of employments in general. Concession of the claim would increase this level by a further six days.
6. Concession of the claim would significantly increase payroll costs. The Company is under considerable pressure to reduce these costs. It faces a major capital investment programme while facing the threat of losing its prime source of revenue generation in less than 3 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all of the views of the parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
12th December, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.