FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY PLC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Red-circling of rates of pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimants were employed as Friskem Supervisors, within the Airport Police Fire Services (APFS) and following a restructuring agreement chose to avail of the option to remain as a members of the Airport Police Fire Service on policing duties. This dispute concerns the red-circling of the Friskem Supervisors remuneration for the Claimants on a personal to holder basis. 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 15th February 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company made a commitment to staff that any individual’s pay would not be reduced as a result of the restructuring process.
2. In August 2007, the Claimants received a letter confirming they could remain as Airport Police Officers on Police duties and their remuneration would not reduce.
3. In 2008 the six Claimants were moved to the 18 point Airport Police scale. The Friskem Supervisors pay scale had 14 points.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2007, the Company embarked on a major review of security requirements as a result of heightened global risk, increased regulation and the continued growth of passenger numbers.
2. In parallel, the DAA commenced a series of discussions with staff concerning changes required in the separation of airport screening functions and introduction of supervision and management.
3. The Company is satisfied that the red-circling only refers to the maintenance of the differential between the two scales.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 6 named employees for implementation of an agreement entered into when the Company restructured its security operations and eliminated the role of Friskem Supervisor. The six named employees had previously been employed as Friskem Supervisors, within the Airport Police Fire Services (APFS) structure, responsible for the supervision of the Airport Search Unit. Discussions commenced on the restructuring in 2007, three options were put forward however, the issue of red-circling arrangements has remained outstanding since.
The alternative options put to the team of Friskem Supervisors as part of the restructuring deal, included the option to remain a member of the Airport Police Fire Service on policing duties and retain their current remuneration on a red-circled basis. A dispute arose between the parties on the interpretation of this option when the Company transferred them to the APFS pay scale on their current rate of pay, with no loss and stated that they will progress to the maximum point of the APFS scale. Whereas the Union submitted that the agreement provided for the six named employees to retain their Supervisory rate of pay and pay scale on a personal to holder basis.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes the letter dated 27thAugust 2007, sent by the Senior Employee Relations Manager to the Union, which states the following:
- “We also confirmed that if a supervisor did not wish to remain in the new ASU and wished to move to Police duties this option would be available to them. In such circumstances we confirmed that remuneration would not reduce as red-circling would apply.”
- “The use of "red circling" as a means of resolving industrial relations issues is not unusual, and can on occasions result in some Employees earning more income than others doing similar work. The "red circling" is usually agreed for accepting a change of position or working arrangement. For this reason, it does not justify other employees receiving the same allowance because of any perceived anomaly arising.”
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
5th March, 2013Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.