FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEDCASTLE AVIATION FUELS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for extra responsibility being requested.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 17 refuellers who are employed by the Company at Shannon Airport. The Union is claiming appropriate compensation for refuellers in respect of accepting extra responsibility attached to the provision of a wing tipping /fuel guage setting service.As a result of a request initially made by Easyjet Airline for the refuellers to provide a wing tipping/fuel guage setting service, the Company sought the agreement of the refuellers to provide this service. The wing tipping/ fuel guage service is a process where the amount of fuel that is required by the pilot is set on a dial under the wing of the aircraft. The amount of fuel needed, is then split between various holding tanks on the plane. In the past airline crew and some engineering staff normally set the guages prior to the refuellers carrying out the operation. Although Easyjet initially requested this service the Company maintains that all carriers will also seek it in the future. The Union raised a number of issues with the Company including indemnifying of employees and responsibility, communication, training, procedures, and compensation. Local discussions were unsuccessful and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Two conciliation conferences were held, following which the issue of compensation remained unresolved. The Company's offer of a once-off lump sum payment of €2,000 was rejected by the Union which is seeking payment of €100 per worker per week. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th April, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 21st September, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The fuel guage setting would be an extra task with more responsibility. The change will be a continuous service to the airlines.
2. The claimants have taken on the task under protest pending the resolution of the compensation issue. Their expectation is for a weekly payment.
3. Similar work undertaken in Dublin Airport by employees of the two refuelling companies there have varying weekly payments along with time payments to incorporate this as normal working.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company faces a difficult commercial and trading situation. It must implement guage setting in order to ensure the future of its operations at Shannon. The Company is not receiving any payment in order to provide guage setting services. Refuellers in the majority of airports in the UK and Europe carry out this work. Guage setting is now common practice in both Dublin and Cork airports.
2. The Company has made a payment of £1,300 punts for new technology in 2000. This payment was made on the understanding that there would be full cooperation with new technology and no cost increasing claims would be made or processed for any new technology being introduced in future within the Company.
3. The Company believes that its offer of a payment of €2,000 is fair and reasonable. It is the best package that can be achieved in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved by the employer modifying its offer to one of a once-off lump-sum of €2,500 per person (gross) and that this be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim now before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th September, 2005______________________
TODKevin Duffy
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.