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: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Salary scales for Technicians in Aer Rianta Technical Consultancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of Technicians employed by the Company for improved salary scales and a fair and transparent method of promotion.
The Union claims that:-
1. Since 1990, the pay scale for Technicians has not been increased in line with the additional duties and higher level of responsibility taken on by the Technicians.
2. The method of promotion is unfair and the workers are not informed by the Company of the criteria used in relation to promotion.
The Company states that:-
1. The pay scales for Technicians are not out of line.
2. The method of promotion is fair and any Technician can have their current position reviewed with a view to promotion.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 29th of October, 1998 and on the 14th of December, 1998. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26
(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of September, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1990, the Technicians' pay scale has only been increased in line with national pay agreements and an additional increase as a result of a clerical pay award even though the level of responsibility and duties carried out by Technicians has increased.
2. The workers are not familiar with how the process works in relation to promotion. The Company refuses to outline the criteria used. There is a lack of openess regarding promotions.
3. The Union are seeking an improved salary scale for Technicians and a fair and transparent method of promotion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Technicians' pay scale is not out of line with other industries. Technicians receive a bonus in addition to their basic salary.
2. The method of promotion used is fair and transparent as any Technician can have their position reviewed with a view to promotion.
3. If the Union's claim is conceded it would have a knock-on effect on other grades within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
A major source of this disagreement arises due to the lack of transparency or knowledge of the criteria in relation to promotions. Another source of discontent is the Management's delay in responding to individual applications for assessment.
The Court recommends that the Company clearly outline the criteria for promotion and limit the time scale for response from Managers to requests for assessment. This to be done within 4 weeks of date of recommendation.
Any technician who then feels that a job has increased in responsibility should, using the defined criteria, make application for assessment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th September, 1999______________________
GB/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.