FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SHANNON AIRPORT AUTHORITY LIMITED - AND - SEVEN NAMED GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY DAVID O'REGAN B.L., INSTRUCTED BY HERBERT & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. A dispute in relation to the Airport Police Fire Service Agreement. 2003.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim that the Workers who were redeployed to the Airport Police Fire Service from the Catering Section are being penalised by having a shift percentage taken from them while on sick leave.
On the 12 May 2015, the Workers referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd March 2016. The Employer did not attend the hearing but did outline its position to the Court in correspondence dated 18th February, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers chose re-deployment under the Restructuring Agreement from the Catering Section and were re-deployed to the new Airport Search Unit.
2. Other staff were re-deployed to maintenance operative areas, car parks, duty free, etc. They all received the appropriate shift allowances.
3. The Workers who joined the Airport Police Fire Service were put on a composite pay scale and are penalised by having a shift percentage taken off them when on sick leave. The shift percentage taken off staff for the first two weeks of sick leave is 25%. The Workers are looking for an increase in pay to take account of this disadvantage.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns the operation and application of a number of Collective Agreements concluded between named Trade Unions and the DAA or Shannon Airport Authority.
The Court has not had the benefit of the views of any of the Trade Unions party to the collective agreements mentioned before the Court. The employer communicated with the Court in writing but declined to attend at the hearing of the Court.
The Court considers that it would be entirely inappropriate for it to state any view as regards the interpretation, application or operation of collective agreements without the benefit of the submissions and views of the parties to those agreements. In the absence of those parties therefore, the Court cannot process the claims before it.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
16th March, 2016.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.