FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOYER IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Failure to honour agreement on 39 Hour Week
BACKGROUND:
2. Hoyer Ireland Limited currently holds the ESSO aviation contract at Dublin Airport. A proposal, dated 31st March 1999, negotiated at a Conciliation Conference in the Labour Relations Commission, sets out amended terms and conditions of employment for Aviation Technicians. The parties accepted the proposal at that time. Clause 3 of the proposal refers toPaid Meal Breaks.This dispute refers to an interpretation of this particular clause.
The Union's position, on behalf of 22 of its members is to amend its weekly roster to 39 hours meal inclusive with immediate effect and pay appropriate retrospection to the technicians involved.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th February, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st May, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Union members employed by Hoyer Dublin Airport prior to 2001 have terms and conditions which were agreed at a Labour Relations Commission Conciliation Conference in March 1999. Due to complex shift patterns worked over 6 weeks, it was discovered that they are in fact:
- rostered for 40 hours per week
- work 40 hour
- are only paid 39 hours
4. The Union also reiterates that the contract of employment signed by employees post 2001 was 39 hours meal inclusive and not that produced by the Company at conciliation as 39 hours meal exclusive.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company agreed in 1999 at a conciliation conference to the re-introduction of pre 1996 working arrangements for Airline Refuelling Technicians. Namely, the re-introduction of a 40 hour (meal inclusive) working arrangement. This is the working arrangements in place to the present day for all Technicians. Discussions in 1999 were not in respect of the introduction of a 39 hour week as the Union claims.
2. If the Company was in breach of that agreement, agreed in 1999, why did the Union remain silent on this until 2002. It must be accepted that if the Company had implemented something different to that agreed at conciliation in 1999 it would have been raised by the Union immediately and not three years later.
3. Custom and practice since 1999 is for the working of a 40 hour meal inclusive working week.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties have asked the Court in interperate an agreement reached at the Labour Relations Commission in 1999. While the option exists for the parties to ask the Industrial Relations Officer who drew up the agreement, to clarify his understanding of the clause in dispute, the parties have declined to do this.
The Court therefore has to make a judgement based on the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Based on the information before it, the Court finds more merit in the Company's arguments in this case, and therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's claim
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th May, 2003______________________
JB/Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.