FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim For A Composite Rate Of Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim before the Court is to have certain shift work payments included as reckonable for pension purposes. The claim concerns approximately 25 workers in various areas of the Company. It is the Union's claim that following restructuring a number of years ago, the Company agreed to enter meaningful discussions on composite pay for the workers involved. Following a number of attempts to engage the Company, the Union referred the matter to the LRC in June, 2006. The Company declined the offer of a Conciliation Conference at this time. Following a further meeting between Management and the Union a Conciliation Conference was arranged for May, 2007. The Company's position is that they could not engage in discussions until certain administrative arrangements were completed. These arrangements were not completed until September 2006 and therefore the Company could not engage the Union on this matter until October 2006.
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 reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th September, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th January, 2008
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 Within the Company a range of different grades of shift workers have enjoyed the benefits of having shift pay reckonable for pension purposes. The employees of similar companies have their shift pay reckonable for pension purposes. The Union's claim is legitimate under the terms of Towards 2016.
2 Management have abused the industrial relations procedures in attempting to frustrate this claim. They have used various delaying tactics including administrative problems, an initial refusal to attend the LRC and a refusal to facilitate meetings to progress the issue.
3 By offering a defined contribution scheme, Management have conceded that there is an inequity and that they should shoulder the cost in relation to this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The company has already indicated that it is prepared to seek to reach agreement on paying an additional pension contribution based on shift earnings if staff paid a similar amount up to a maximum of 6.375% of pensionable pay. This could not be paid into the present Supplementary Scheme. Agreements with other categories of workers contained productivity elements in return for composite pay and other benefits.
2 Granting composite pay for pensions purposes to these staff would have serious knock-on implications on other categories of workers who have shift and roster duty elements to their pay. The granting of this benefit without agreement on additional productivity may also impact on agreements reached with other groups where specific productivity were given in return for composite pay.
3 Composite pay forms part of a larger claim being brought by the Unions as a group. These discussions have commenced. The Company have indicated that it is prepared to address the issue as part of the wider discussions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court relates to 25 Duty Managers who sought composite pay (the inclusion of Rostered Duty Allowances) for pension purposes. The Union stated that many other groups within the Authority already have this benefit and held that a commitment was given by management to address this claim in 2003.
Management accepted that the claim has been long standing, however, it was of the view that no guarantee has ever been made that the claim would be conceded. When questioned by the Court, management accepted in broad terms that agreement on this issue could be reached, however, it submitted that the claim should be dealt with as part of the discussions currently ongoing with the Group of Unions on the wider issue of pensions. These discussions are dealing with the Unions’ claim for “Composite Pay Benefits for all Shift Workers”. Management gave a commitment to the Court that these discussions could be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
Having considered the matter and based on the commitments given by Management, the Court is of the view that the claim should be “parked” pending the outcome of the wider discussions with the Group of Unions, and recommends accordingly. The Court should be made aware of the outcome of this process.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th January, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.