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: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Non-payment of collectively agreed rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that seven Workers who were given fixed-term contracts in November 2007 are entitled to the previously collectively agreed fifteen-point pay scale contract which has a higher maximun rate than the five point pay scale that was applied by Management. Management maintains that in 2007 the airline was loss-making with pay scales 30% higher than their comparators within the industry. Discussions eventually led to agreed new pay structures in October 2008 and these new scales were applied to the seven Claimants. Management can see no reason to alter the contracts.
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 6th August, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th September, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Workers signed Team Member contracts in November 2007 under duress. At that time there were ongoing discussions regarding pay structures. As no new agreement was signed off on the prevailing pre-October 2008 collectively agreed contracts they must still apply.
2. The Workers are entitled to similar treatment as their colleagues who have remained on the legacy rate. This would include all back-money and any other entitlements lost due to their placement on a non-agreed pay scale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During discussions on a new pay structure during 2007/2008 Management launched a company-wide pay freeze and drew up a shorter five-point pay scale for all newly hired staff which contrasted favourably with the legacy
fifteen-point pay scale and also ended the long service increments. The Claimants had joined the Company on fixed-term contracts in July 2007 after the new scale was tabled by the Company.
2. The seven affected Workers on the Programme for Continuous Improvement (PCI) 2007 scale are not earning a lower pay rate than their peers on the legacy pay scale to date. The PCI hybrid contract allows for an uplift in basic pay. While roster duty allowances and public holiday compensation are retained on their promotion to TMC grade. These privileges that are not available to Workers still on the legacy scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the seven Claimants in this case are in an anomalous position in that they were placed on the Team Member scales before agreement on those scales was eventually reached.
However, account must be taken of the passage of time since this anomaly arose and the fact that agreement was eventually reached on new scales in line with those currently applied to the Claimants.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Union accept the position put forward by the Company in its letter of 29thJanuary 2014. In acknowledgement of their anomalous position, and on an exceptional basis, each of the Claimants should be paid a once-off lump sum of €10,000 in consideration of accepting the Team Member scales on the terms set out in the Company’s letter referred to above.
This Recommendation is made having regard to the unique circumstance of the seven Claimants associated with this claim. It is not intended to have any precedent value and it should not be quoted or otherwise relied upon to advance or support any other claim in this or any other employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th September, 2014______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.