FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SR TECHNICS - AND - SR TECHNICS CRAFT GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rejection of Company proposals (pay/change).
BACKGROUND:
2. SR Technics, A Swiss based Company recently took over the Dublin Operations as part of a takeover from FLS Aerospace Group. The Company employs about 1300 workers in the provision of aircraft maintenance services at Dublin Airport, 600 of these are craft workers. The dispute concerns the rejection of a ballot by workers of proposals put forward by the Company. The Company's offer to the craftworkers was 5½% plus and additional 4½% increase in their basic pay. In addition a number of off-scale payments will be consolidated into their basic pay. The Company maintains that this will increase craftworker's basic pay overall by between 11% and 19%.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The package was recommended by the Craft Group, but was rejected in a ballot of the craftworkers. The Company’s position is that it was still in serious financial difficulties and that they were unable to increase the offer made. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th March, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Craftworkers have fallen well behind crew managers in SRT and the differential has now grown to 39%. Craftwrokers do similar work and have since 1994 increased their basic pay by €21,000 while SRT members have had €8,000 increase.
2. Craftworkers feel entitled to at least the 12½% Sustaining Progress value in return for normal ongoing change. The Company's offer of 5½%and 4½% is for a whole raft of major change.
3. The Union strongly feels that the 4½% increase should be increased to a level appropriate for the amount of change sought and also being workers differential with crew managers closer to the 14½% it was originally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company argues that there is a diminishing manufacturing sector in Ireland caused in no small part by the high labour cost inflation with more competitive entrants emerging from the Far East and Eastern European countries. It makes it difficult to maintain a viable operation.
2. Recent losses demonstrate that customers have choices and can have their maintenance carried out in countries with lower labour costs and hence more competitive rates.
3. The business in Dublin needs to be competitive and must meet customers' expectations. To achieve this, the company requires the full support and co-operation of the Craft Group of Workers.
4. The most recent proposals put forward to workers represents the Company's best possible offer to meet the needs of the craft workers. The Company working arrangements must meet the needs of customers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company gave details to the Court of its difficult trading position and its battle to maintain competitiveness and viability. It stated that the package, which emerged in relation to pay and working conditions, in February, 2005, following extensive negotiations, represents its absolute best effort to meet the aspirations of the Craft Group.
The Union rejected the package on the basis that it did not provide sufficient increases in pay for the level of changes sought by the Company.
The Company pointed out that there was provision in the offer to explore competency based pay and that it was willing to review elements of the package at the end of Sustaining Progress 11 in Summer 2006.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that the February 2005 package of proposals should be accepted and implemented by 1st July 2005, and in return the Company should bring forward the promised review due to take place in Summer 2006 to March 2006. In addition the Company should pay a lump sum of €1,000 to each of the craft persons involved in the claim on the full acceptance of the Company's proposals of February, 2005.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th_June, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.