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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning 6 am start, issues concerning Sergeants' grading and supervisory levels at Dublin Airport .
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns members of the Airport Police Fire Service (APFS) employed at Dublin Airport. The APFS is responsible for both security and fire fighting duties at Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports as well as "friskem" functions. Industrial relations in the Company are governed by the "1971 Agreement" a section of which outlines the terms and conditions of employment for the APFS at the three airports. Intensive negotiations have been taking placed called the Constructive Participation Process (CPP) on a restructuring of the role and functions of the APFS. These discussions are ongoing.
Claim 1
Background- Early Start
Separate from these discussions the Company claims it has the right under the 1971 Agreement to introduce a 6.00 am start. The Union maintains that this cannot be resolved in isolation from the other issues relating to Sergeants/ Station Fire Officers which are in dispute for some time. A temporary solution was reached in that newly recruited permanent part-workers would start at 6.00 am. This agreement expired in January 2000, and since then the level of cover is back to night shift levels. The Company wants to implement the 6.00 am start immediately. It rejected the claims relating to Sergeants' grading and supervisory levels in their present format but claims that they could be considered in the context of restructuring of grades as provided for
in the CPP. However, the Company is not prepared to move on restructuring the APFS grades in isolation from the total redevelopment of the service under the CPP, until negotiations are completed.
Claim 2
Background - Supervisory Grading
In June, 1993, six Senior Police Firepersons were upgraded following the introduction of a new organisational structure in the APFS at Shannon airport. Subsequently, the Union submitted a claim to restore full parity between APFS Sergeants at Dublin and their equivalents at Shannon. The Union claims that the erosion of parity had occured due to agreements being reached in Shannon which allowed the Sergeants there to achieve a salary of significantly higher value than the Sergeants in Dublin. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that the grading structure at Shannon had regard to prevailing local conditions, combined with a productivity agreement.
Claim 3
Background - Supervisory Numbers
The Union claims that the number of Sergeants/Station Officers should be increased from its present level of 15 (9 Sergeants and 6 Station Officers) to 28 (16 Sergeants and 12 Station Officers). They supervise increasing numbers of Police/Firepersons with each being responsible for between 9 and 29 at any one time and up to 50 on critical occasions. This is at least double what it used to be. The Union maintains that the quality and quantity of the supervisory work undertaken by the Sergeants/Station Officers has increased significantly over the years which necessitates the increase claimed. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that supervisory/management on duty during the peak times is adequate.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in February and March, 2000. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 21 March 2000. A Court hearing was held on 11th of May, 2000.
Claim 1 - Early Start
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of the early start can only be fully addressed through adequate recruitment, retention of at least the agreed manning levels and a full assessment of the real needs on nights. The Company has never met the agreed manning levels. A recent stress report by the Work Review Centre confirmed that if the Company had to abide by the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, it would be unable to justify the demand for overtime and the stress levels within the force.
2. The 6.00 am start will not provide for the level of cover necessary to meet the Company's commitments to its customers. The issue of cover provided by the force needs to be analysed in depth to properly ascertain the requirements. The representatives of the APFS are willing to engage in a review process, on condition that requirements of workers will have an equal priority with those of the Company. Any imposition of the 6.00 am start on the APFS will be unworkable.
3. If a generous incentive is offered it is possible that cover could be provided on a voluntary basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The right to alter the roster times is provided for in the 1971 Collective Agreement for the APFS.
2. The Labour Court has already found in favour of the Company on a similar issue regarding the Company's right to introduce a 6.00 am start time for APFS in Cork Airport and the interpretation of the 1971 collective agreement in this regard (LCR 14600 refers).
3. The roster change sought by the Company is essential to providing a professional customer focused frisking operation at its boarding areas. This is in response to the growth in airport traffic and the change in the Company's flying schedule.
4. The provision for an early duty commencing at 6.00 hours is already in existence for permanent part time APFS and has already been covered by existing full time permanent staff when they were in that category.
5. In the absence of having early duty cover from 6.00 hours, the Company is failing to meet the needs of its security clearance operation which results in long delays and unnecessary queues for customers. The Company is receiving a high level of complaints from its customers airlines regarding the inadequate service provided before 7.00 am in the morning.
Claim 2 - Supervisory Grading
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
5. 1. The Sergeant/Station Officer grades in Dublin have responsibility for the supervision of the Police/Fireperson. Each Sergeant or Station Officer can be responsible for numbers varying from 9 to 25 at any one time. This exceeds the requirement in Shannon.
2. Except for the Shannon agreement, all agreements in Dublin have applied to the comparator grades in Cork and Shannon. When in 1996, through the Murphy Tribunal, two additional productivity points were added to the scale, the benefits were also applied to Cork and Shannon on the equivalent basis.
3. In the case of the Sergeants and Station Officers, the Union believes that the Company is attempting to break relativity between different groups/grades and is also dividing the Sergeant, Station Officers and Senior Police/Firepersons into separate groupings. On this occasion both the members in the Sergeant and Station Officer grade in Dublin and the Police/Fireperson grade are determined that their relativity remains intact and that the benefits of the deal are accrued on a fair and equitable basis throughout the Force.
4. This deal should now be applied, with full retrospection to the claimants in the Sergeant/Station Officer grade in Dublin on the same basis as applied in Shannon in 1993.
5. When conceded, the relativity between the grades must be maintained.
6. The APFS is a national force in which all pay agreements except the 1993 Shannon agreement have applied in the three airports on a fair and equal basis.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS
6. 1. The Company has the right to introduce different organisational structures in the APFS in Dublin, Shannon and Cork as outlined in the collective agreement.
2. Different organisational structures have always prevailed at each of the Airports.
3. The present APFS structure at Dublin Airport is required to meet the operational requirements.
4. The APFS does not require an additional eighteen executive positions.
5. The costs associated with this claim are prohibitive and could have very serious repercussions on the future viability of the APFS at Dublin Airport.
Claim 3 - Supervisory Numbers
UNION ARGUMENTS
7. 1. Since 1990 the number of posts manned by the APFS and supervised by the Sergeants has grown from 25 to 50. The number of passengers coming through Dublin Airport has increased significantly. This has had a major impact on the Sergeants/Station Officers duties as well as those of police/firepersons.
2. A major building programme is in progress over the past 5 years. The level of disruption and passenger inconvenience has been minimised through the co-operation of all workers in the Company and the Sergeants/Station Officers have made a major contribution in this regard.
3. Over the past two years a new initiative - the Probation Development and Review has been introduced. It is a process on monitoring and assessment provided to each new recruit during their probationary period. Each recruit is given the opportunity of feedback and on-going assessment from a senior officer. This involves the Sergeants/Station Officers in meeting the recruit on a regular basis and compiling reports on their progress. They are strongly in favour of this initiative and have taken it on without any additional reward.
4. The increases in the numbers of Sergeant and Station Officer grades sought by the Union is necessary to meet increased demands. The introduction of a "stand-up" agreement (.i.e. Police/Firepersons "acting-up" )similar to one which already exists in the Station Officers situation would provide cover for short-term absences due to project work or sickness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
8. 1. The APFS at Dublin Airport has a complement of 272. The supervisory/management levels are 36 giving an average ratio of 7.63 APFs per supervisor/manager. It is accepted by the Company that this figure can be distorted when actual deployment is analysed. The Company does not have an agreement on ratios of APFS to supervisory/management numbers. On an average day on early and late shifts there is one Airport Police Inspector (API) and two Duty Sergeants (DS) on duty. This reduces to one API and one DS on night duty. The API operates as the shift manager with the DS responsible for first line supervision. There is an average of 42 operational airport police persons on duty between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm, 30 between 7.00 pm and 11 pm and 22 between 11 pm and 7.00 am. The APFS are highly trained in all aspects of airport policing and security. Between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm approximately 6 APFS are allocated to fixed airside landside posts performing security duties,16 are allocated to "friskem " to provide passenger search with the remaining 20 police performing police functions. The primary role of the Sergeant is to monitor the operation, deal with queries and co-ordinate a response to any special incidents that may arise in conjunction with the API. The Company contends that three operational supervisory/management staff on duty during the peak times is adequate to
discharge the responsibility for the supervision of the Airport Police function. At times this cover is supplemented with an additional middle duty depending on rostering requirements. Airport Police Officers do not require constant monitoring as they are a highly trained professional group.
2. The payroll cost of employing a Sergeant can amount to £37,800 per annum including company costs. At present management are looking for ways to make the APFS more competitive from a cost perspective to sustain the service into the future. The Company cannot afford any additional payroll costs when they are unjustified and unnecessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background: The Court has been presented with two separate and effectively unconnected
disputes. One dispute concerns the advancing of the current early shift roster hours for Airport
Police/Fire Service staff, while the other relates to supervisory numbers and grading. An overall
agreement on restructuring of the APFS is expected by both parties to be completed by year end at
latest, as a result of the current Constructive Participation process in discussion between the
parties to these disputes.
Early Start
The Company claims that it needs an extra 9 staff to commence at 6am, rather than the current
7am start time for the early shift. The reasons given were the avoidance of delays from increased
passenger throughput at the boarding security checking area, resulting in consequent delays to
passenger boarding. The Company claims that it is entitled to make such changes under the
terms of the Company/Union Agreement of 1971. Other airport personnel, to meet with customer
requirements, operate this 6am and earlier start times. The Union accepts the need for some extra
staff on the earlier start, but wants this to be met by voluntary overtime until the overall
reorganisation of the APFS is finalised under the Constructive Participation Process. Such
overtime has not proved to be available at the levels required by the Company. Previous
temporary arrangements involving new recruits have been self-terminating. The
Union was unwilling to allow a temporary solution using casual staff at the critical time, or the use
of outside staff.
Supervisory Numbers and Grading
The first aspect of this issue is the Union's claim that the Sergeants and Station Officers in Dublin
Airport should be upgraded to executive level. In 1993 the equivalent grades at Shannon agreed
an arrangement eliminating these grades and promoting existing incumbents. The Company
claims this was agreed as part of a productivity agreement reducing overall
supervisory/management numbers to suit local operational requirements at Shannon, and that
such requirements are met by the existing structure in Dublin. The Union agreed the Shannon
change at the time. Both parties under the Constructive Participation talks are currently
developing the future organisation of these grades at Dublin Airport.
The second aspect of this issue is a claim by the Union that the numbers of supervisors (Sergeants
and Station Officers) at Dublin airport needs to be increased in line with the increased levels of
throughput. An extra 12 Sergeants and 6 Station Officers are sought on this basis, with the
corollary that these would also be further promoted to executive level on the basis of the claim
above. The Company accepts that the numbers of APFS staff have increased over the last 10 years,
but argues that the overall supervision is adequate, that it cannot affort to appoint more in the light
of current costs, and that this is a matter to be resolved in the same current Constructive
Participation talks.
Court Recommendation:
1.Early Start
The Court believes that it is essential that distinction be made by all parties between matters that affect the immediate needs of the customers, and those pertaining to the longer term restructuring of the Airport Police and Fire Service. The Court considers that the overriding aspect of the 1971 agreement is the clause 10.2(i) relating to the need to match the staffing to the required flying schedules, and that rosters may be changed in accordance with clause 10.2 (ii) of the agreement.
The Court notes that the present Company requirements relating to a 6am start would involve a 6am shift for AFPS staff on less than one week every three months. The Court also notes that the Union has suggested that a payment of double-time for this earlier hour would be acceptable, and that the Company has indicated that it would in effect meet this.
The Court recommends that the Union accept the proposed roster change as an interim measure to overcome the current traffic difficulties, until such time as an alternative acceptable solution may be worked out regarding restructuring of the service.
2.Supervisory Grading
The Court has considered carefully the detailed arguments of the parties, and the various agreements made.
The Court believes that the 1971 agreement implies a linkage of pay rates between similar grades at each of the State Airports operated by Aer Rianta. However, it is also clear that this agreement does not require similarity of structures, and does allow local operating conditions to be the over-riding factor. Structural differences between the Airports do exist now. The Court considers that the structural changes agreed at Shannon in 1993 were part of a productivity agreement by both parties, as evidenced by the agreed reduction in overall supervisory/management numbers, and the compensation for loss of overtime, and that these were facilitated by suiting local requirements. The Court does not recommend that such local deals must necessarily be applied to the other Airports under the terms of the 1971 Agreemen. Whatever is agreed can be specific to the needs of those airports.
3.Supervisory Numbers
The Court notes that both parties envisage a requirement for a significant increase in APFS staff. The Company acknowledges that this will result in increased numbers of supervisors, and see this being addressed in the Constructive Participation forum, as part of the restructuring of the APFS. The Company has also expressed an acceptance of the need to review the lengthy scale applying to Supervisory grades as part of this restructuring, and indicated that it expected new pay positions and posts to stem from agreement on new divisions of the jobs within the APFS.
It appears to the Court that there will be improvements for numbers of existing staff on conclusion of the Constructive Participation talks, both in terms of pay and promotions. The Court itself is not competent to decide the numbers of supervisory posts required for satisfactory operation of the Airport, and recommends that this be agreed between the parties as part of the current talks.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
June, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCCaroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.