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. Upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of three of its members employed as Passenger Screening Supervisors at Shannon Airport. The dispute relates to the Union's claim for upgrading of its members' positions from Passenger Screening Supervisors to the level of Police Sergeant/Fire Station Officer grade in order to reflect the increased level of duties and responsibilities now associated with the Passenger Screening Supervisor role. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that it has previously reviewed the Union's relativity and finds no basis for conceding to the claim. The Employer asserts that it utilised a third party independent body to carry out an assessment of the role. The conclusion of this assessment confirmed that the Passenger Screening Supervisor role was appropriately remunerated and there was no requirement to upgrade the position.
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 28th March, 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 contends that the three Supervisors are carrying out an analogous role to Sergeants located in Cork Airport and should be upgraded accordingly.
2. The Union is seeking pay parity in line with Cork Airport.
3. The Union is seeking the retrospective upgrade of the Supervisor positions, to be backdated to 2009.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The role of the Supervisor was properly reviewed both internally and externally through the use of a third party.
2. The conclusion of both reviews confirmed that the Supervisor role is appropriately graded and remunerated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the written and supplementary verbal submissions of both sides to this dispute the Court recommends that the parties appoint an agreed expert to examine the work performed by the claimants in Shannon relative to that performed by the comparators in Cork Airport. Both parties should agree to be bound by the findings of the agreed third party.
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.
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.