FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay rates and other claims.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns middle managers - superintendent level. There are approximately 260 staff in this grade. The superintendents are based in Dublin, Cork and Shannon. There are two superintendents grades - level 1 and 11 , of which level 1 is the higher. There are also 17 personal superintendent B - which are red-circled. Superintendents are the first management grade in the Company. The Unions are claiming that the superintendent grades have fallen behind the historical comparator of senior management grades (assistant Principal Officer and Principal Officer) in the Civil Service. The Company does not accept the comparator but made offers at local level discussions. The Unions are also raising the issue of health insurance, telephone allowance, overtime, concession travel and bank holidays.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences on 13th February 2001 and 28th February 2001 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement could be reached both sides agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the industrial Relation Act, 1990. The matter was referred on the 26th April 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd May 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Rates of pay are substantially out of line with external and internal comparators.
2. There is inadequate remuneration for the worth of the job.
3. Pay is artificially depressed following the Company's financial difficulties during the 1990's.
4. Scale lengths are grossly excessive
5. The workers sacrifices brought about the improved financial success of the Company and this should be shared.
6. The Company could loose valued staff members if it does not address family friendly working policies and lifestyle options.
7. The workers have displayed great flexibility over the years and carry important responsibilities that align them to middle management.
8. The timing of this claim should not be prejudiced in any way because they are one of the last groups to settle.
9. Equity concessions conceded to operatives/clerical grades should by right , also be conceded to superintendents.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A number of negative factors could have a serious adverse impact on profitability:-
- A decline in the economies in some of the airlines main markets.
- The severe impact of reduced bookings caused by the foot and mouth outbreak
- Customer uncertainty as a result of the industrial relations environment since last October.
- Substantial increase in the cost base as a result of recent and potential pay settlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is aware of a range of restructuring agreements recently concluded between the Airline and the Unions associated with the current claims, in respect of other groups. These agreements arose either directly or indirectly from recommendations of the Court. In broad terms, a common outcome emerged on key issues in each of these settlements.
As a general proposition the Court believes that the group associated with this claim should be entitled to conclude a restructuring agreement which is comparable with those already concluded. The Court recommends that the parties should now enter into negotiations, in conciliation, with a view to concluding such an agreement.
In those negotiations the parties should focus on identifying those elements of the Company's offer which fall short of the standards already established in earlier agreements.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th May, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.