Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Supervisor

Airline

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00014911-001

10/10/2017

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent since 2007, having been previously employed. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 10th October 2017 concerning an alleged non-payment of compensation on her appointment as a Supervisor.

The Complainant left the employment of the Respondent under a restructuring plan in 2005 and re-joined the Respondent Company in 2007, with a number of other workers. The Complainant was issued with a Contract of Employment which reflected that of Grade 3 legacy staff, incorporating a fifteen-point pay scale with a higher maximum. In 2007 Management and the Unions commenced negotiations on a new pay structure and agreement was reached in October 2008. The agreement allowed for staff to migrate to the new contract and receive a substantial lump sum. The Complainant was not permitted to migrate as she did not have the necessary qualifying service. The Complainant was promoted to Supervisor in 2009 and remained on the legacy payscale at Grade 2. She was approached by her Supervisor and informed she was required to sign the new contract or step down from her position. This new contract is inferior and her pay reduced by a significant amount. The Complainant stated she signed under duress. The issue was raised by the Complainant and her Trade Union SIPTU on a number of occasions but the issue was not resolved.

SIPTU argued that there were a number of other workers in a similar situation who took their complaint to the Labour Court and the Court issued a Recommendation in favour of the seven Complainants in that case. The Complainant contends that she had an understanding with the Respondent that if compensation was paid to these seven Complainants, she would also be included.

The Complainant is seeking to benefit from a once off exceptional payment of €10,000 which was awarded by the Labour Court to seven named employees of the Respondent arising from a Labour Court Recommendation of 29th September 2014. The Complainant was not part of the original complaint to the LRC and it is clear from the Labour Court Recommendation that the express intention of the Court was that their Recommendation was limited to the named seven Complainants and could not be relied upon by others.

The Complainant took up employment under a Fixed-Term Contract in a Grade 111 on 23rd July 2007. She joined as a new employee despite having been previously employed but this service did not accrue. At this time the Company was in protracted negotiations with the Unions on cost saving initiative and part of this process involved the introduction of new payscales and shift pay rates and while the negotiations were ongoing a company wide pay freeze and new pay scales and grades were introduced and the Complainant was placed on this new payscale and she was advised that once a new collective agreement was reached she would be moved to a new contract without further compensation. Agreement was finally reached in November 2008 and the final piece of these negotiations saw the emergence known as (named) which was registered with the Labour Court on 29th June 2010. This agreement allowed for migration whereby existing staff could accept voluntary severance and were later reemployed on the new contracts. To be eligible to apply to migrate an employee was required to have 18 months continuous service as of 15th December 2008. The Complainant did not have the required service.

The Complainant was employed on the Legacy payscale in 2007 but effective from August 2009 she has worked in a promotional grade, initially on an acting basis and subsequently on a permanent contract. Since the Collective Agreement of June 2010 all those promoted move to the new agreed payscale foregoing their legacy arrangements. The Complainant was appointed in an acting basis in August 2009 and she was moved to the new agreed payscale with a 15% shift allowance and she has remained in this role since when in October 2011 she was confirmed in her permanent position.

The Complainant is seeking to have the Labour Court Recommendation of 29th September 2014 applied to her even though she was not party to this complaint. SIPTU did not include the Complainant in their complaint to the LRC in December 2013 and the circumstances of the Complainant are different to the seven Complainants covered by the Labour Court Recommendation in that while she may have been employed in 2007 on the same basis as the seven employees she was promoted to (named) in 2009 and on promotion she accepted and signed the new contract of employment incorporating the new agreed payscale.

On the basis of the evidence and written submissions from both Parties it is clear that the Labour Court Recommendation of 29th September 2014 applied only to the seven Complainants who had referred their complaint to the LRC in December 2013 which was eventually heard by the Labour Court on 19th September 2014. The Recommendation provides as follows – “This Recommendation is made having regard to the unique circumstances 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”.

It is clear from the evidence that the Complainant was promoted in an Acting capacity effective from 5th July 2009 with further extensions to this Contract until she was appointed on a permanent basis effective from 30th October 2011. The evidence shows that the Complainant signed each contract presented to her. The Collective Agreement with the Unions of November 2008 and June 2010 provided for all new employees and those promoted to be appointed to the new agreed grades and payscales. Therefore, the evidence shows that the Complainant case is different to those of the seven employees who are comprehended by the Labour Court Recommendation of 29th September 2014.

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and in view of my findings above I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute.

Section 13 of Industrial Relations Act, 1969 – Application of Labour Court Recommendation of September 2014 sought – dispute not upheld