FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. Grading Claim for 7 Team Members D in Cabin Appearance 2. Role Sizing and Job Evaluation 3. No Agreement for Team Member and Specialist Contracts in the Head Office Building 4. Claim for Increase to Early Start Roster Duty Allowance 5 Lack of Promotions
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to a)Grading Claim for 7 Team Members D in Cabin Appearance, b) Role Sizing and Job Evaluation, c) No Agreement for Team Member and Specialist Contracts in the Head Office Building, d) Claim for Increase to Early Start Roster Duty Allowance and e) Lack of Promotions.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 17th June 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th October 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1Grading Claim:The Union is seeking the appropriate rate of pay for staff who are continually carrying out Team Supervisors duties.
2Role sizing and Job Evaluation:The Union is seeking the introduction of a fair and transparent system of job evaluation in circumstances where Management re grades roles without any Union agreement or involvement.
3Team leader/ Specialist Contracts/ Promotional Opportunities:The Union is seeking that Management cease advertising posts at variance with existing agreements on established rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment.
4Early Start Roster Duty Allowance:The Union is seeking an additional early start payment for early starts prior to 5 a.m. as earlier starts have been introduced without the appropriate payments.
5Promotional Opportunities:The Union is seeking an increase in the number of promotional opportunities for those who did not avail of the leave or return agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Grading Claim:Management rejects this claim as all staff are required to deputise on an ad hoc basis in compliance with agreements.
2Role sizing and Job Evaluation:Management contends that it offers jobs at market rates and are in the top quartile of rates of pay.
3Team leader/ Specialist Contracts/ Promotional Opportunities.Management does not accept the Unions assertions. It maintains that it offers positions at appropriate levels of pay.
4Early Start/Roster Duty Allowance:This is a cost increasing claim which the Company cannot concede.
5Promotional Opportunities: Promotional opportunities continue to exist in the Company for those willing to make the necessary changes in their careers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to each of the Union's claims:-
Grading for Team Member D's in Cabin Appearance
The Court recommends that where staff in this category are required to undertake the duties of a higher grade they should receive an acting up allowance on the same terms as apply to other categories who receive such an allowance in consideration of carrying out higher duties.
Role sizing and Job Evaluation
While the Court does not recommend any change in the current arrangements for role sizing and job evaluation, it does recommend that the criteria used in the process be communicated to the Union and that a fair internal appeals mechanism should be put in place. The parties should have further discussions on giving effect to this recommendation.
Team Members/ Specialist Contracts/Promotional Opportunities
While these matters are the subject of separate claims, the Court believes that these issues should be considered together. The current arrangement by which rates of pay applicable to team members and those on specialist contracts are determined is now well established in the Company. The Court believes it would be neither practical nor justifiable to recommend a change in that arrangement at this time.
Nevertheless, there is cogency in the Union's contention that this arrangement impacts unfairly on those who did not have the opportunity to avail of the leave and return agreement in that it effectively limits their potential for career progression. In that regard the Court accepts that it is inherently anomolous to expect those promoted to higher positions to accept a reduced level of pay. In the Court's opinion this effective curtailment of opportunities for careeer development is not in the interests of either party.
While not recommending concession of the Union's clam that these positions be filled on the basis of historic pay scales, the Court recommends that the parties have further discussions with a view to agreeing a mechanism by which this anomalous situation can be adequately addressed. These discussions should commence as soon as practicable following acceptance of this Recommendation and should be concluded within a time-frame not exceeding three months.
Increase in Rostered Duty Allowance (RDA)
The Court recommends that an RDA for a 4:30h start sould be fixed at an additional €15 and that a further €15 should be payable for a 4:00h start if
introduced.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th November 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.