FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON AIRPORT AUTHORITY (SAA) (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Revalidation payments and time off for attendance at Company/Union meetings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members employed as Aerodrome Fire Officers (AFO) at Shannon Airport. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for revalidation payments and time off for attendance at Company/Union meetings. In relation to its claim for revalidation payments, the Union contends that AFOs are required to revalidate their qualifications every four years and in line with a Company/Union agreement, receive a payment based on their current increments for doing so. The Union maintains that there are inequities in the payment amounts received by the AFOs, with junior officers in some instances receiving higher amounts than senior officers. The Union is seeking parity across the board on this issue. The Employer rejects the Union's claim.
In terms of its claim for time off for attendance at Company/Union meetings, the Union asserts that prior to 2012, AFOs received twelve hours time off in lieu for attendance at meetings that take place on scheduled rest days. Since 2012, the number of hours of time off in lieu granted has unilaterally been reduced to four hours. The Union is seeking restoration of the twelve hours time off in lieu. The Employer rejects the Union's claim.
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 not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th February, 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st May, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking pay parity in line with revalidation payments currently paid to AFOs in Cork and Dublin Airport.
2. The Union maintains that the Shannon AFOs are being treated in an inequitable manner in comparison to their counterparts based in Cork and Dublin.
3. The Union contends that the Employer unilaterally reduced the number of hours of time off in lieu granted for attendance at meetings without prior discussion.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a condition of employment that AFOs revalidate their qualifications through the relevant training courses.
2. The Employer contends that it is adhering to a Company/Union agreement on the issue of the revalidation payment and accordingly rejects the Union's claim for an increase in the amount paid to AFOs.
3.The Employer is of the view that adequate time off is granted for attendance at meetings and therefore disputes the Union's claim for an increased amount of time off for AFOs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides in this dispute the Court recommends as follows:
Revalidation Payments
The Court finds merit in the Union’s claim and recommends that Shannon Airport bring its revalidation payments into line with those in force in Dublin and Cork with effect from a current date.
The Court notes that this is a legacy claim that predates the establishment of Shannon Airport as an independent company and has been addressed by the Court in that context. The decision in this case does not constitute a precedent for any claims that may arise in the future regarding the maintenance or restoration of pay relationships between Shannon Airport and its historical comparators.
The Court so recommends.
Time off for attending Union/Company Meetings
The issue in dispute has company- wide implications and should be properly addressed in a broader context than the category claim currently before the Court. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
The Court expresses no view on the merit of either sides position on the substantive matter.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
13th June 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.