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: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Grading of Duty Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of 11 Duty Supervisors Grade D for upgrading to Senior Operative Grade B. As part of the Company's "Strategy for the Future", it was agreed by the parties that the posts of Loading Foremen and Allocator would be integrated into the position of Duty Supervisor Grade D, reporting to the Aircraft Loading Supervisor, graded at Senior Operative B. Operative grades in the Company are as follows:- Operative A, the basic intake grade, Operative B, C and D. The Ground Handling Department consists of two main sections, Aircraft Cleaning and Loading. The main Operative positions in Ground Handling are Loader/Cleaner Operative A, Lead Loader/Cleaner Operative B, Shift Leader Loading/Cleaning Operative C, Duty Supervisor Loading/Cleaning Operative D. In addition to these grades there are a number of senior supervisory operatives graded at Senior Operative B. The Duty Supervisors in both Loading and Aircraft Cleaning report to senior supervisors graded at Senior Operative B, the grade which the former are seeking to achieve.
It is the Company's view that the job-ranking structure that exists is a participative, systematic and objective method which deals with and determines the relationship, relative difficulty and importance of every operative job against all other operative jobs. There are presently approximately 93 operative jobs which fall within the ranking system covering in excess of 900 operative staff.
Following the claim for upgrading, the Company indicated its willingness to explore the possibility of re-structuring which might yield a lesser number of promotional vacancies for the workers concerned.
The Company's proposals were rejected by the Union on the grounds that the claim was on behalf of the entire group. A job-evaluation took place, subsequently, which found, inter alia, the appropriate grade for the job of Duty Supervisor to be Operative D. Accordingly, the Company rejected the claim and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Following a conciliation conference the Company proposed that while the job does not merit upgrading, the Company would be prepared to deal with the matter internally, in the context of submissions made by the Company to the Union as part of its Viability Plan, covering, inter alia, a new grading structure, a new grade and the reintroduction of job ranking.
The proposal was unacceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, on the 8th of July, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 31st of July, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The main reason for having the supervisors upgraded is to recognise their contribution to the loading section and to the Company as a whole and which was described as critical by the Manager of the job evaluation (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company offer of a limited number of promotions is unacceptable as all the Duty Supervisors should be treated equally.
3. As the Manager of the job evaluation was not completely aware of all relevant issues, (details supplied to the Court), the Union believes his report to be fundamentally flawed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The ordered, participative and objective approach to job-ranking which exists was devised to prevent job grading issues from becoming an industrial relations matter. It is this systematic method which was used to determine the appropriate grade for the particular function in question.
2. The Company has made reasonable proposals which may assist in resolving the dispute by dealing with the Union's aspirations fairly and objectively. These proposals, however, have been rejected by the Union.
3. The aspiration of the Union to have every Duty Supervisor promoted to a higher grade would effectively remove grade-capping in the ground handling area. This would remove any impediment to having each operative in that area upgraded to the next higher grade, as a snowball effect. This case is being closely watched throughout the Company and, depending on the outcome, similar demands with a domino effect may follow from Aircraft Cleaning, Catering, Cargo and Transport areas, with follow on claims from Shannon and Cork airports.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
It is clear that both parties accepted that this post would be referred for examination by job-evaluation and that the finding of this evaluation was that the post did not merit the higher grading.
While the Court notes the Company offer to deal with this claim in the context of proposals on the Viability Plan, it accepts that this group cannot accept this proposal in isolation, ahead of the wider agreement.
However, the Company has also offered to address this issue through proposals on structure.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court recommends that the parties meet to explore the Company proposals on structure, as a means of resolving this issue, and addressing the concerns of this group, in relation to those who might not benefit from the proposal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
10th September, 1998______________________
M.K./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.