LCR15454

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/649 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15454 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(3), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAM AER LINGUS - AND - TECHNICAL SUPERVISORS' COMMITTEE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Matters arising from Court Recommendation No. LCR14552.



BACKGROUND:

2. In LCR14552 (August, 1994) it was the view of the Court that, in relation to Front Line managers' pay, the new pay-structure proposed by management should be implemented, together with an off-scale payment of £1,500 p.a. (approvals) and the payment of extra hours at flat-time for 12 months, subject to a review of its operation by the Court after 12 months.

The parties met in December, 1995, to discuss the pay review as envisaged by the Court and covered a range of issues. The Company, subsequently, indicated that it intended to implement a rate of Time x 1.3 for additional hours worked. The Company stated that basic pay adjustments and off-scale approval payments could be addressed generally as pay claims. The Supervisors' Committee's position is that pay scales for the new grades within TEAM should be in line with levels suggested in the Committee's submission to the Court in 1994. Additionally, it claims the scales should be considerably shortened. The Committee claims that the premium rate for overtime should be restored to facilitate the needs of TEAM and to maintain a realistic approach to overtime working. The Committee also states that the off-scale payment should be in line with the figure it proposed in 1994.



Agreement was not reached between the parties and the matter was the subject of a Court hearing, on the 30th January, 1997. Both parties made written submissions to the Court, which were expanded upon orally during the course of the hearing.





RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given careful consideration to all the points raised by the Supervisors' Committee and has also re-examined the background to the LCR14552 and subsequent clarifications. The Court has also considered the responses from the Company.

In all the circumstances the Court concluded that the Company's response to the Committee's claim is not unreasonable and, accordingly, should be upheld.

The Court, therefore, does not recommend in favour of the Committee's claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
18th of February, 1997______________________
M.K./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.