FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Productivity assessment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988, aircraft craftworkers who at that time worked in the Company's maintenance and engineering department entered into a productivity agreement. Various amounts of money were paid off-scale and at the conclusion of the agreed measurement period in June 1992, payment was made on scale.
In June 1992, the Union lodged a claim on behalf of chefs employed in Aer Lingus Catering for the restoration of parity with other Aer Lingus craftworkers. Management rejected the claim.
A conciliation conference in May, 1993 was adjourned due to ongoing negotiations in relation to the Aer Lingus survival plan "strategy for the Future" (Cahill Plan) which was agreed with the Union on behalf of chefs in late 1993.
In 1995/1996 local level discussions failed to progress the matter and the Union requested the Company to initiate a productivity assessment in relation to its parity pay claim. The Company indicated that it was not prepared to undertake any productivity assessment which compares to Team Aer Lingus or Aer Lingus aircraft craftworkers in order to progress any parity pay claim.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 12th September, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th October, 1996 under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court investigated the dispute at hearings held on the 15th November, 1996 and the 9th June, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company proposed dealing with the chefs' parity pay claim in a self financing manner. In the circumstances the Union's request for a productivity assessment is reasonable.
2. In 1993 the number of chefs employed by the Company fell by approximately one-third. This resulted in annual savings to the Company of £250,000.
3. In 1993, 34 chefs catered for Aer Lingus flights only. Currently 24 chefs cater for Aer Lingus flights plus a large number of foreign aircraft including Aer Lingus chartered flights.
4. It is difficult for the Union to understand the Company's refusal to take part in a productivity assessment. The Company has utilised industrial assessors in similar circumstances in the past.
5. The chefs work load has increased considerably. The current situation in the flight kitchen bears no resemblance to the situation which was the subject of cost saving negotiations in 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Aer Lingus Catering is to all intents and purposes a separate business within Aer Lingus. It must justify every aspect of its operation on a cost effective, efficient and commercial basis. To do otherwise would return it to the precarious position it found itself during the pre "Cahill Plan" period.
2. The chefs cannot claim that their pay should be determined by historical factors. The claim is for a productivity payment based on an agreement entered into during the late 1980s. The chefs had no hand, act, or part in this productivity agreement.
3. The Company is prepared to facilitate a productivity assessment of chefs on the basis of:-
(a) Productivity improvements already agreed to be first implemented in
full.
(b) An assessment of productivity levels then in place to be carried out.
(c) Additional new productivity measures to be agreed and implemented
and the new productivity levels to be measured and compensation
terms agreed.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute had been the subject of two Labour Court hearings. Having considered the issue and taking into account the historical background the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) Immediate talks should be held with the objective of reaching agreement on the full implementation of the 1993 Productivity Agreement. The Court sees the proposals set out in the Aer Lingus document attached to the letter of 6th May as a basis for progress.
(2) The Court notes that the Company is prepared to facilitate the productivity assessment claimed by the Union when the objective outlined above is achieved. In the circumstances the Court recommends the Union should agree to these proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
8th July, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.