FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AIRMOTIVE IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal Of A Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-053991-Ir-07/Joc
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns an employee who was nominated by Management to deputise for his Manager for a period of one week. The Union are seeking the Managers rate of pay for this one week as the employee concerned undertook the full range of duties of the Quality Assurance Manager and was offered no additional remuneration. The Union reference the Kingswood Agreement negotiated between the Unions and Management in March 2000, regarding the period of time the employee was acting as Manager. The Company argue that the Kingswood Agreement is not relevant to this employee and that to have a person deputise while a Manager was away from his office is common practice in the time critical aviation industry.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th March, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"The parties to meet and agree an allowance for Deputising for Managers going forward at the same time deal with the current claim from the claimant"
On the 22nd April, 2008 the Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 It is unreasonable for senior management to expect the employee concerned to undertake the additional duties and responsibilities associated with undertaking the role of Quality Assurance Manager without being paid the rate commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the post.
2 Neither the plant agreement nor the terms and conditions of employment at the time the employee took up the position of Quality Assurance Auditor required him to deputise as Quality Assurance Manager.
3 The Union have never stated that the employee is covered under the Kingswood Agreement. However, the Agreement does state a time period a person can cover a position before an allowance must be paid. The period stated is one week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The practice of having a designated point or person of contact to deal with matters normally covered by a job holder who may be absent for any variety of reasons is universal. It is a technical and safety issue, in a time critical industry and is not the basis for any additional remuneration.
2 The Kingswood Agreement as quoted by the Union dealt specifically with Non-Craftpersons. Supervisory and Managerial grades were not represented at the discussions for this Agreement. A separate agreement was reached with the Unions representing these grades in May 2000.
3 To afford any basis for such a claim after 28 years in operation by the Company would be to legitimise the creation of a new cost category and would create unnecessary tensions among staff.
DECISION:
The Court regards this case as unusual. The issue in this case regarding the general principle of acting up duties and responsibilities to management level normally does not arise and is usually dealt with in a variety of ways depending on the culture and tradition of the organisation.
Since there might have been some level of confusion in this individual case of the QA Auditor, as to the lack of precision in intent and context contained in the QA manager's email as to his impending absence, and as to the full extent of duties and responsibilities delegated and required to be performed, and the overarching position of the Technical Director's role as a final point of reference in management decision making, the Court believes this claim should best be settled on a commosense basis.
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner Recommendation in this instance proceeded too far in placing a liability on the Company to negotiate an arrangement going forward covering the general principle of deputising for Management positions, and this part of the Recommendation is set aside.
However in the circumstances outlined above, the Court supports that part of the Recommendation for the parties to pursue a locally negotiated settlement for the claimant on a once off non precedent attaching basis, taking into account the relatively short period of time involved.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
30th May, 3008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.