FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is one of 7 Duty Supervisors, Grade D in the Company's aircraft cleaning section. He is seeking to achieve the same grade as a Duty Supervisor in the loading section, which is graded as Senior Operative, Grade B. He is also seeking to be placed on the maximum point of the pay scale, in line with 2 Duty Supervisors in the loading section who were placed on that point by the Company.
During 1999/2000, the position of Duty Supervisor in Aircraft Cleaning was examined using the Job Ranking criteria. A determination was issued in September, 2000, and found that:-
"this detailed examination justifies a grade no more than Operative D grade as appropriate. In addition it should be stated that the exercise demonstrates that there is further potential to enhance the job without affecting the Grade D grade."
The worker referred his case to the Court on the 14th of May, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of October, 2001. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has trained with and been performing the same duties as the two employees who had been placed on the maximum point of the pay scale. The Company claims that the 2 workers were placed on this point because of work "above and beyond the call of duty". The worker has performed similar work, (details supplied to the Court) and should also be placed on the maximum point.
2. The worker believes that he (and the other Duty Supervisors in aircraft cleaning) should be graded as Senior Operative, Grade B as the work performed by both grades is similar.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two workers were placed on the maximum point of the pay scale because of work above and beyond the call of duty. The Company has always reserved the right to do this. A similar claim was before the Court in November, 1999, and was rejected in LCR16372. The Company believes that this issue has been dealt with. The worker is paid at a point on the scale commensurate with his service.
2. The determination which issued in September, 2000 (as above) found that operative grade D was the correct grade for the worker and the other Duty Supervisor in aircraft cleaning.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company, as it did in a previous similar case, argued that in addition to the normal progression, it reserved the right to move people through the scales on an accelerated basis, based on merit performance. This, it was claimed, had been done over many years, and reasons were given for the accelerated promotions in that particular case.
While the Court accepted in that case that the practise appeared to exist and did not recommend concession of the claim being made, it is concerned that the reasons given by the Company for moving the particular employees through the scales would appear to exist in this case.
The claimant, subsequent to the Court hearing, claimed in writing that he had performed the same tasks as those presented by the Company to justify its decision in the previous case. The Company did not refute this claim, and in the absence of such a rebuttal, the Court believes that there is a case to answer.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties meet to try to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides. If they fail to reach such an agreement, the Court will issue a definitive recommendation on the issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th November, 2001______________________
CO'N/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.