INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Withdrawal of a lunch allowance.
2. The Union claims that management has withdrawn a lunch allowance from 3 clerical staff employed in the Travel Shop Section without any consultation or agreement with the Union. It wants the allowance restored. The current value of the allowance is €4.19 per day.
Management rejected the Union's claim and stated that the lunch allowance was withdrawn following the implementation of the "Aer Lingus Survival Plan".
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th April, 2002 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
the 30th April, 2002 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 16th August, 2002(earliest date suitable to the parties).
3. 1 The Union cannot accept any further erosion of its members terms and conditions of employment.
2. The lunch allowance was unilaterally withdrawn by management without any agreement or consultation with the Union.
3. The withdrawal of the lunch allowance for the staff concerned was not in any way part of the Company's "Survival Plan" for this section.
4. The Company has not only breached accepted industrial relations norms and procedures, including agreements on change, but have also breached the terms of the Labour Relations Commission's "Survival Plan".
4. 1. The lunch allowance was withdrawn for the staff concerned following the implementation of the Company's " Survival Plan".
2. Most of the staff at Dublin Airport do not use the staff canteen and given the current difficulties facing the Company it is no longer practical to continue paying this allowance.
3. The staff concerned were given the opportunity to redeploy to the new services centre and were informed that the lunch allowance would no longer apply.
- 4. The Company made an offer to buyout the lunch allowance. However, this was rejected by the Union.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the parties agree to the discontinuance of the lunch allowance, and that each of the staff members concerned receive compensation equal to twice the annual value of the allowance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd August, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.