FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of Agreement:- allowance payment and additional increment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues before the Court arise from a restructuring agreement reached between the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) and the employees of the Car Park Section, represented by SIPTU, on 22nd December 2006. The issues in question concern an 'Allowance Payment' and an 'Additional Increment'.
The Union is claiming that the Allowance Payment, which was paid effectively from the 31st May 2007, should have been paid from the date of the Agreement in December 2006. This allowance is in exchange for continuous working, i.e. employees are expected to cover for each other during breaks. The Company believes that the implementation date for the allowance should only have occurred at the same time as staff numbers were reduced and the new roster arrangements were introduced. The new rosters were not implemented until July 2007 for operational reasons.
The other issue refers to the interpretation of the wording of one paragraph in the Agreement concerning a one-off payment award which the Union believes to be an annual increment. Subsequent to the Agreement the Company paid those on the maximum point of the scale a one off lump of €2000 in addition to a lump sum payment. The Company maintains that it never agreed to an ongoing and reoccurring annual payment.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th October, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that there is nothing in the Agreement that states that the stand-by allowance should not have been paid from any other date than the date of acceptance of the Agreement in December 2006.
2. The Union further maintains that their members should not be penalised for the failure and delay caused by the Company in not having all elements of the Agreement ready to put in place on the date of acceptance and when staff moved to the Control Centre.
3. The Union signed off on the restructuring Agreement on the clear understanding that they had secured the monetary value of an additional ongoing increment for staff who reached the maximum of their pay scale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Restructuring Agreement provided significant compensation for the work and operational changes introduced.
2.The accelerated increment was an agreed form of recognition for the extra workload that may have materialised during the systems change over period and was paid to all staff.
3. The stand-by allowancewas designed and agreed as a form of compensation for any interruption in meal breaks. The possibility of an interruption in a meal break could not have occurred until the new rosters were in place and the new staffing levels were achieved.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Additional Increment
The Court is satisfied that this was paid in respect of a once-off event and does not recommend concession of the claim.
2.Stand-by Allowance
The Court recommends that this matter be resolved by the Company increasing the offer made by it at conciliation from 4 to 8 weeks' retrospection.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
25th April, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.