FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 32, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : AER RIANTA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged Breach of the Registered Employment Agreement entitled "Airport Police Fire Service".
BACKGROUND:
2. Aer Rianta is responsible for managing Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports. One of the most important sections of Aer Rianta at the airports is the Airport Police Fire Service (APFS). The APFS provides the policing,security and fire and rescue services at the three airports.
After many months of discussion, the APFS Agreement was agreed between Aer Rianta and SIPTU and was entered into the Register of Employment Agreements on 30th January 2004.
The Union alleges that the company is in breach of Article 2 Subsection 2.4 of the Agreement entitled "future pay determination" which states that
"The future pay determination of the APFS should have regard to developments across Aer Rianta and the position in the Gardai and the Dublin Fire Brigade"
The company's position is that they have complied with the terms of the Agreement.
On the 25th May 2004 the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Court hearing was held on the 21st September 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. Article 2 Subsection 2.4 of the Agreement states that future pay determination of the APFS should have regard to developments across Aer Rianta and the position in the Gardai and the Fire Brigade. If there was no direct linkage of the APFS with the Fire Brigade and the Gardai, the proposals for the Agreement would not have been accepted by members of the Airport Police Fire Service.
2 . In the report of Mr Dan Murphy, the chairman appointed to carry out an extensive industrial relations facilitation process, the Fire Brigade and the Gardai are cited 82 times by way of determining pay proposals appropriate to the APFS. In an interim report by Mr Murphy dated 2nd February 2001, attention of the parties is drawn to the fact "that it would seem obvious that the basis for determining the pay of a service which provides a police service and a fire service for a state organisation in Dublin should be the pay applying in the state organisation which provides such services to the community at large in Dublin-namely the Dublin Fire Brigade and the Gardai".
3. When negotiations were taking place, there was no disagreement from the company that a formal linkage to the Dublin Fire Brigade and the Gardai was being established.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 While the Agreement was being negotiated, it was accepted that the obvious comparators to the AFPS would be the Dublin Fire Brigade and the Gardai but at no time was it accepted that a direct linkage for pay determination existed.
2. If a direct link existed as claimed by the Union side, the rates of pay in the Dublin Fire Brigade and the Gardai would have applied. This was not done, nor did the Union request the application of these rates.
3. The Company maintains that pay determination in Aer Rianta should, in the first instance, recognise the circumstances in the company and then have regard to the position in the Gardai and the Dublin Fire Brigade.
Decision:
The Court, in considering the complaint made by the Union of a breach under Section 32(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, has examined the written and oral submissions made by the parties to the Agreement. The Court has also examined the wording of Article 2, Subsection 2.4 of the APFS Agreement of 2003 i.e.
"The future pay determination of the APFS should have regard to developments across Aer Rianta and the position in the Gardai and the Dublin Fire Brigade"
On the evidence presented to it, the Court does not find that the complaint by the Union, under Section 32(1) of the Act, is well founded and dismisses it.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th October 2004______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.