FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS SOCIAL & ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Cost reduction programme for bar staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case relates to the Association's proposal to reduce the pay rates of the bar and function room staff by 15% and reduce or cease the payments of other benefits such as acting-up allowances and the level of premium rates of pay for working public holidays. It is proposed by Management, that in future rosters should reflect both customer's needs and have regard for the occasional request by staff to have a weekend off.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th August, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Whilst the Union accepts the financial details as outlined it cannot accept the proposal to cut only the bar staff's pay rates and benefits.
2.The Union is prepared to examine all and every reasonable proposition in order to resolve this matter with the exception of the introduction of pay cuts for the function room and bar staff.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the continuing decline in both bar and function room business and the overall financial loss the Company is suffering there is no other viable option other than to reduce labour costs.
2. Even with the proposed pay cut of 15% bar staff would still be enjoying pay rates of 37% above their internal comparators.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns the Company’s proposals to alter the rates of pay and conditions of employment for its Bar staff employed in the Association. The Company put forward the proposals in order to reduce costs and ensure the viability of the Association for the future.
The Union disputed the necessity to concentrate alone on the Bar staff and suggested that alternative means could be deployed to reduce costs going forward.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes that there is no disagreement between both sides on the necessity for the cost savings. Consequently, the Court recommends that with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission both sides should enter into serious and meaningful discussions on how to achieve the required savings and ensure the viability of the Association for the future. The Court recommends that such discussions should commence as soon as possible and be completed within a period of four weeks.
In the event that there are any outstanding matters following these discussions then the issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th October, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.