FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY AIRPORT (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (a) Claim for payment of outstanding increases under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the 1st phase of Partnership 2000.
(b) The implementation of LCR13708 in relation to unsocial hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. Galway Airport, which opened in 1988, is a voluntary, non-profit making operation owned by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 13 ground staff that, as a result of the Company's failure to implement the final phase of the PESP, all phases of the PCW and phase 1 of Partnership 2000, the workers' wages, which it claims are already low, have fallen even further behind those of other workers. The Union also referred to the fact that the workers in question are required to work unsocial hours and split shifts for which they receive no allowance or premium. The matter was the subject of LCR13708 in which the Court recommended that the question of payment for unsocial hours be addressed in subsequent negotiations, which has not happened. The Company's position is that, due to ongoing financial difficulties, it is unable to pay the increases sought. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 17th of July, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Galway, on the 9th of October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It appears that the Company had no intention of honouring the terms of the National Agreements. The workers concerned, who are prepared to forego any retrospection due to them, are not prepared to continue to allow their wages to fall behind those of other workers.
2. While the Company's trading difficulties are acknowledged, it is unreasonable that the workers should be expected to subsidise the Company which has made considerable savings at their expense, by paying low wages and by refusing to consider the payment of any type of shift allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been in financial difficulties for a number of years (details supplied to the Court) and any pay increase or the introduction of a shift allowance would put the airport into a further and increased loss-making position. Management recognise the commitment and co-operation of the staff and the Company would wish to pay what is due to them but, due to financial constraints, it cannot do so.
2. The airport is small and only has 2 flights per day, at 6.30 a.m. and at 13.50 p.m. The Company is actively seeking increased business from different airlines and operators at present. Should the trading position improve, with resultant extra revenue, management would be in a position to discuss the matter of a pay rise with the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and, taking into account the position of the Company, the Court, in the circumstances, recommends as follows:-
1. An increase of 4% from the 1st of October, 1997;
2. A further increase of 3.25% from the 1st of April, 1998;
3. In April, 1998 the parties meet to discuss the current trading position of the Company and the payment of Programme 2000 from an agreed date.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
3rd of November, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.