FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SHANNON AIRPORT AUTHORITY (FORMERLY DAA PLC) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MR DAVID O'REGAN B.L. INSTRUCTED BY HERBERT & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-112070-ir-11/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-112070-ir-11/POB. The issue concerns a claim that the worker was incorrectly assimilated onto the Airport Police Fire Service pay scale having transferred from the Catering Unit to the Airport Search Unit (ASU) and subsequently to the Airport Police Fire Service (APFS). The worker further contends that his transfer to a different method of pay determination resulted in losses of both earnings and sick pay entitlements in comparison to other co-workers.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 21st February 2013. The Rights Commissioner found that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as it concerned the pay and conditions of a group of workers. On the 22nd March 2013 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd October 2013.
The following is the Court's Decision:
DECISION:
This is an appeal by a worker against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against his claim as he found that he had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as the case concerned the pay and conditions of a group of workers consequently he was prohibited by Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 from hearing the case. The worker appealed that Decision to the Court.
Background
The matter referred to the Rights Commissioner arose due to the redeployment of the worker (and six others) from the Catering Unit at Shannon Airport to the Airport Search Unit (ASU) in or around March 2007 under the Dublin Airport Authority Shannon Restructuring Agreement 2007. By Summer 2008 both he and his colleagues had transferred to positions in the Airport Police & Fire Service (APFS). The Appellant (and his colleagues) claimed that on redeployment to the APFS he was incorrectly assimilated onto the APFS pay-scale and that this had consequences for his sick pay entitlement. Along with his colleagues he claimed that there was an inequity in relation to the point on the APFS pay-scale which he was placed on when he transferred from the ASU to the APFS. The APFS pay-scale is a composite pay-scale consisting of basic pay and allowances (shift allowances, etc.). As the Appellant (and his colleagues) had not been in receipt of a shift allowance previously, either in the Catering Unit or the ASU, they were assimilated onto the APFS pay-scale at 20% lower than former colleagues (who had gone into shift areas before being re-deployed into the APFS), i.e. the Appellant (and his colleagues) were placed on a point off-scale, between two points on the scale. The Appellant (and his colleagues) disputed the non-application of shift allowance to their staring point on the APFS scale. Furthermore, as composite pay includes a shift allowance, sick pay in the APFS regime is paid not at 100% of composite pay in the first two weeks of sick leave but at 75% therefore the Appellant (and his colleagues) were of the view that they were losing out and sought rectification of this arrangement.
SIPTU on behalf of the seven workers, referred the claim to Management initially and then through inhouse procedures to an agreed Internal Adjudication Committee which rejected the claim.
Preliminary Issue
As a preliminary issue the Court decided to deal with the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the first instances before it could consider the substantive claim.
Mr David O’Regan, B.L., instructed by Herbert & Co., Solicitors, on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case as it concerned a trade dispute and was not a case of collective action by a body of workers concerning pay rates. He stated that the issue did not concern all members of the APFS in Shannon Airport. He stated that as such the seven workers involved, while bringing their claim individually, did not constitute a body of workers as they only represent a minority of the APFS grade. He stated that it was a dispute brought by seven individuals with a similar claim with each claim lodged separately.
Mr Chris O’Donovan, IBEC, on behalf of Shannon Airport Authority (formerly known as Dublin Airport Authority Plc), submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to the hear the appeal as the claim involved a body of workers and their rates of pay and was consequently prohibited under Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 from investigating the dispute. He stated that the Appellant and his colleagues had at all times acted as a body of workers in contemplation of their dispute. Mr O’Donovan referred to the fact that when the matters were raised internally by SIPTU, the group raised it collectively and entered a collective submission to the Internal Adjudication Committee which issued one binding Decision on the matter. He said that when the matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner the Appellant and his colleagues were represented by the same legal representative and all lodged identical claims on the same day. He held that this joint action is reflective of a body of workers in contemplation of the trade dispute rather than individual action.
Conclusions of the Court
Having considered the issues before it the Court has determined as follows:-
Statutory Provisions
Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides a statutory restriction on the types of cases Rights Commissioners may hear. They may not investigate disputes connected with rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays of a body of workers.
Section 13 (2) of the Act provides:-
- Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.
The Rights Commissioner Service was primarily established to investigate cases of an individual character which prior to its establishment would have occupied the Labour Court’s time unnecessarily. Claims which by their very nature and character have broader implications are inappropriate for the Rights Commissioner Service and are dealt with by the Labour Court. The 1969 Act provided a stipulation that issues concerning such matters as rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays are issues which can have broader implications and are consequently not issues appropriate to the Rights Commissioner Service.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the appeal before the Court concerns issues related to rates of pay and concerns a body of workers acting in concert. It is a claim which if conceded could potentially have broader implications for others. On that basis the Court is of the view that it is precluded by the terms of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 from hearing the case.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s finding and rejects the appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th November 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.