LCR22266

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/20/106
CCc-163294-18

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR22266

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY DAA

- AND -

3 AIRFIELD MAINTENANCE WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman:	Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member:	Ms Doyle
Worker Member:	Mr Bell

SUBJECT:

1.Loss Of Premium For Night Work

BACKGROUND:

2.UNIONS ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union claim is for compensation for loss of premium payments their members weren't afforded the opportunity to earn.

2. The Union maintain that the three members were treated less favourably than other staff who transferred to the section slightly earlier.

3 The Union is seeking a payment equivalent to what their colleagues earned in the period..

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer claims that the staff were already on a composite rate when they transferred.

2. The Employer also maintains that the claimants were advised on commencement by local management that Night Shift including premium payments would not be available to them.

3. The Employer insist that as the claimants did not work any overtime and were paid for the hours worked that there is no outstanding payment due.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute involves three Airfield Maintenance Workers employed by the DAA in Dublin Airport.

It is the Unions position that in 2016/2017 the staff moved to a new area but remained on their compositive rate. At that time transitional arrangements were in place as the company was seeking to move everyone in that area to a 24/7 shift which was finally introduced in and around the end of July 2018. It is the Union submission that the Workers in question were excluded from overtime earnings during the transitional period even though other staff who were also on a compositive rate were provided with overtime. This inconsistency of approach has led to the three workers being financially disadvantaged during the period in question.

It is the Employer’s submission that the Worker’s were told when they moved into the area that they would not be required to do overtime and would work a dayshift only despite the fact that they were on a composite rate, The Employer did not dispute that other Workers who were on a composite rate may have received overtime payments during the period and subsequently received a buyout of the overtime. The Employer could not account for the difference in approach. The Employer and the Union accepted that this was a historical issue that only affected these three Workers.

The Court having carefully considered the submission of the parties recommends that the Workers be paid seven thousand euros each in full and final settlement of these issues. It is accepted by the parties that on receipt of that payment all matters relating to this issue will have been concluded.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

	Louise O'Donnell
DC	______________________
12 October 2020	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.