FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEDCASTLE AVIATION FUELS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning manning levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates in the fuel distribution sector at Shannon Airport and employs seven permanent and a number of temporary workers. In April, 1995, the Company and the Union concluded an agreement, negotiated against a background of declining business, which reduced the number of permanent jobs from 9 to 7 and a buy-out of certain allowances. The Union claimed that the Company's trading position had improved significantly in recent years. It sought the up-grading of 2 temporary workers to permanent posts. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 6th March, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th August, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 8th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two workers concerned have worked full-time hours consistently for the Company for the past four years. While they have secured statutory rights by way of their service, they are excluded from the pension scheme.
2. Some weeks after the agreement was concluded the Company's business improved dramatically and has continued to do so to the present time. The Company now controls a significant amount of the refuelling business at Shannon.
3. The Company is now in a strong financial situation and can afford to appoint the two workers to permanent positions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Labour costs account for approximately 70% of the Company's overall costs and are far in excess of competitors. The current rate of pay for permanent workers substantially exceeds the norms in the industry. To increase manning levels at the permanent rates of pay is untenable.
2. The Company operates in a very competitive market which is subject to constant changes. Its two largest customers have reduced their refuelling contracts significantly.
3. The comprehensive agreement freely reached between the parties cost the Company almost £300,000. Less than six weeks later the Union submitted a claim for an increase in the number of permanent operators on the basis that the Company had secured a one year refuelling contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the manning agreement between the Company and the employees should be upheld.
Notwithstanding this the Court notes that the senior temporary employees in this claim have been working continuously in recent years.
In the circumstances it is the view of the Court that, given their service and the terms of the agreement regarding the appointment of permanent staff, that the Company and the Union should seek to put in place arrangements for the inclusion in the Pension Scheme of long term temporary employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
26th November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.