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 Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Implementation of an agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute concerns the proposed method of recognising local flexibilities and productivity measures in the Loading Section at Dublin Airport. A range of measures have been identified by the parties and the Union, on behalf of approximately 475 members, is seeking an increase in the workers' basic pay. The Company, however, has rejected their claim and has offered to pay once off lump sum payments to the claimants. This offer was rejected by the workforce.
Discussions regarding the productivity measures took place at local level and at approximately six conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement on the issue of the method of payment was not possible and the Union requested referral to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The dispute was referred on the 24th of July, 2000, and a Labour Court hearing was held on the 18th of August, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreed productivity measures will generate savings of £1.6 million per year. The benefits will be ongoing for the Company and should, therefore, be ongoing for the employees.
2. The Company argues that concession of the claim would lead to knock on claims from other sections. Any concession would be protected by the productivity measures agreed. However, if any other section was in a position to negotiate on productivity, it would be in the Company's interest to engage them in discussions.
3. In Labour Court recommendation LCR16372 the Court agrees with the Company's use of the merit performance mechanism to move people through the incremental stages of the pay structures and not be in breach of the agreed pay scales. The claimants are unwilling to accept that this issue should be resolved by lump sum payments. If management wish to secure their ongoing co-operation the matter can only be resolved by on scale payments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants are among 1300 operatives employed by the Company. All operatives are covered by the Operative Grades Agreement of 1971 which states that there must be a singular approach to operative pay and grading structures. The claimants are seeking an increase in pay over and above every other operative in Aer Lingus. This is clearly in conflict with the Agreement.
2. Parallel to this issue, central pay restructuring talks are taking place which include operatives from the Loading Section. The new restructured pay scale will apply to all operative staff and will be financed through a combination of central initiatives and local flexibilities and productivity measures.
3. The Company has already paid 5.6% cumulative for the flexibilities identified under a Partnership Framework Agreement. As the extent of the local flexibilities will vary from area to area, the Company has offered generous once off payments commensurate with the level of savings agreed and identified in each of the local areas. Where grading issues arise due to increased responsibilities, they will be dealt with through a revised job ranking system.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the course of the hearing the Union indicated that its objective could be met by the application of a once-off progression on the salary scale for all existing employees in the claimant grade. The Court feels that the possibility of adopting this approach is worthy of further exploration by the parties.
The Court recommends that the parties should recommence discussions on the feasibility of this approach. In that regard the Union should definitively clarify its position that any concession along these lines would not result in any consequential claims from other groups either directly or indirectly.
In these discussions the parties should have regard to all relevant considerations. This should include the impact, if any, the adoption of this approach would have on the attainment of the savings targets necessary to successfully complete the current central pay restructuring negotiations involving the Central Operative Section Committee.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th August, 2000______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.