FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAA SHANNON - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation OfDAA Shannon Restructuring Agreement- Meal Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. A restructuring agreement was reached between the parties in March 2007 following negotiations chaired by the Labour Relations Commission. This dispute concerns the interpretation of the part of the agreement which relates to a meal allowance which applied to those formerly employed in the catering department.
This 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 6th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th June, 2009, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Catering staff are historically the lowest paid staff in the Shannon Airport.
2. In accepting the restructuring agreement the Union did not concede the ending of the meal allowance.
3.The Union stated that it did not agree with the wording of the clauses dealing with the meal allowance in the restructuring agreement.
4. The restructuring agreement was accepted on a without prejudice basis which meant that the Union could re-enter this claim once re-structuring was completed.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Workers received compensation of €16,000 under the agreement.
2. In the current challanging financial climate no additional payments can be conceeded.
3.Concession of this claim could result in the unravelling of this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns an interpretation of a provision in the DAA Shannon Restructuring Agreement concluded in March 2007 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
The relevant provision relates to the treatment of a meal allowance which applied to those formerly employed in the Catering Department.
The clauses in the Agreement, the subject of this dispute read as follows: -
- “An issue has arisen in relation to meals available to personnel currently employed in the catering department. Specifically the Union side has a position that in event of such personnel re-deploying to another part of the DAA/Shannon as part of this agreement, arrangements should be made to deal with the impact of that move on the meal arrangement in the case of staff not re-deployed to higher paid positions. The Company for its part rejects any argument that this issue requires to be dealt with as a separate matter to the arrangements set out elsewhere in this proposal.
The Commission is of the view that the lack of available information at this stage around the scale of the issue in terms of the numbers of people who might opt for re-deployment, etc makes it almost impossible to address this issue at conciliation at this time.
The Commission therefore proposes that discussions of this matter should be adjourned without prejudice to the position of either party and conciliation should be resumed at a point when the wishes of persons currently employed in the catering department in terms of the options available to them under this proposal are known.”
Having carefully considered the submissions and the written clauses in the Agreement the Court is satisfied that the Agreement restricts any further claim tothose not re-deployed to higher paid positionsand accordingly upholds the interpretation held by Management.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th July, 2009______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.