FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY (DAA) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay Differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a pay differential claim. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th August, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th October, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Airfield Maintenance Supervisor pay grade has always been two grades above the Airfield Maintenance Operatives.
2. The role of Airfield Maintenance Supervisor contains extra duties that are not conducted by the Operatives, therefore they should receive an additional financial reward.
3. The Company's offer of a once-off payment is unacceptable, as it does not recognise the responsibility that is involved within the role.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. It is not possible to agree to any structural grade pay changes to previous agreements while we are currently engaging with all daa recognised unions.
2. It is clearly outlined that the grade involved is an Operative D scale, which has an agreed scale.
3. This claim should be addressed during the current Better Together Negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two Airfield Maintenance Supervisors for a pay differential over the Airfield Maintenance Operative they supervise. In 2014, the Operatives were the subject of a job evaluation exercise carried out by Towers Watson. As a result they were upgraded from Operative Grade B to Operative Grace C in October 2014.
Supervisors are graded at Grade D. They claimed that as a result of the upgrade for Operatives, the two grade differential was eroded, they sought to restore that differential. To address the claim Management commissioned a Towers Watson job evaluation of the Supervisor’s role and it was found that they were correctly graded. However, in an effort to resolve the issue, Management offered the Claimants a once off payment of €1,668, i.e. value of one year’s perceived loss of differential. It also offered to commit to examine the issue as part of “Better Together” negotiations. The proposal was rejected by the Union and consequently was withdrawn by Management.
Having considered the oral and written submissions made, the Court recommends that Management should uphold the practice, first established in 1971, of having a two grade differential between the Airfield Maintenance Operatives and the Airfield Maintenance Supervisors. The Court recommends that the differential should be restored with effective from October 2014.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th October 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.