Case Number: ADJ-00004466. Workplace Relations Commission

Date19 July 2018
Docket NumberADJ-00004466
CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
PartiesA Worker v A Transport Service Industry
Procedure: In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).


The claimant submitted that the respondent has unilaterally imposed non- agreed rates of pay outside of their collective agreement with SIPTU. He is seeking to have the appropriate grade applied to him with retrospection to the date of breach of the collective agreement. It was submitted by the union that increased trading by the company in the last 2 years has resulted in significant additional workloads for the claimant and his colleagues. The union contended that the claimant and his colleagues have been flexible and adaptable in responding to the increasing demands of the company taking on a diverse range of duties across the spectrum including catering, security, firefighting , ramp functions and others.

A collective agreement was reached between the company and SIPTU in 2004 – the agreement addressed the extension of operational hours and the grading scales as well as premium payments. The union asserted that despite this agreement, additional work was imposed on staff without applying the agreed rates under the collective agreement. It was advanced that the role and responsibilities of the claimant were equal in value to that undertaken by identifiable comparators and that the persistence of this inequity was unfair to the claimant. It was highlighted that the matter had already been the subject of consideration by the Labour Court in LCR 21157.

The respondent rejected the claim and submitted that the company was operating at a significant loss and the company continued to rely on government subsidies. The company declared inability to pay social partnership increases between 2008- 2009 – arising from LRC intervention, a report was issued by Mr.BA which supported the airport’s position of inability to pay. The respondent set out the ensuing...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT