Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8746 Case Number: LCR11086 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - FWUI;/ |
COMPENSATION FOR CABIN CREW WHO ARE OBLIGED TO CEASE FLYING DUTIES BECAUSE OF PREGNANCY
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in all the circumstances of this claim, is of the
view that the terms for settlement proposed by the Chairman of the
Aer Lingus Conciliation Council are reasonable. The Court notes
that the Company is prepared to implement these terms and the
Court recommends that the Union also agree to their
implementation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8746 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11086
D852254 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11086
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim, for the retention of earnings and credits by cabin
crew members who are re-deployed to alternative work during
pregnancy.
Background:
2. In accordance with Department of Communication's regulations,
a member of an airline cabin crew must cease flying duties as soon
as it is confirmed that she has become pregnant. Cabin crew who
cease flying in these circumstances can:-
(a) be laid off and secure unemployment benefit if qualified.
(b) be assigned to alternative work in the Flight Services
Department where their basic salary and other conditions
remain similar to those applying to persons actually working
as cabin crew;
(c) be assigned to alternative work elsewhere in the Company -
primarily clerical duties. In this case the salary and
other conditions are those which apply to the clerical grade
in question with the point on the scale being determined by
reference to the number of years of service.
The dispute concerns the category at (c) above. In practice, the
duties to which a member of the cabin crew staff is assigned in
these circumstances are usually those of clerical grade iv. The
salary scale applicable to this grade is less than that applying
to the cabin crew staff. Further differences arise from the fact
that, on transfer to ground work, a member of the cabin crew loses
cabin crew credits. The Union sought to have the staff in
question retain their normal cabin crew salary while working on
the ground and that they should also be entitled to payment of
cabin crew credits, on the same basis as applied while on annual
leave. Local level negotiations failed to produce a settlement
and the matter was referred to the Internal Conciliation Council,
who issued the following recommendation on 3rd December, 1984:-
" It is recommended that, while the arrangement for paying the
staff transferred to alternative employment in the
circumstances concerned by the dispute should remain as it
stands, there should be a fall-back rate of total income
equal to 90% of the basic cabin crew salary."
This recommendation was not acceptable to the Union and after
further local negotiations, was referred on 13th November, 1985,
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences were held on 17th December, 1985 and again on 28th
November, 1986. As no settlement was possible at conciliation,
the issue was referred on 22nd January, 1987, to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 6th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The present arrangement, whereby it was considered
reasonable for cabin crew to be laid off without pay,
derives from a different era. General attitudes have
since changed and recent legislation has established
that a female employee retains all her rights and
entitlements on pregnancy. In these circumstances, the
position of pregnant cabin crew is an anachronism.
(b) Until recently, the majority of cabin crew saw their
jobs as short-term, with few expecting to spend most of
their working lives in the position. Many female cabin
crew resigned shortly after marriage. Consequently,
there was a reduced incidence and significance of
pregnancy amongst cabin crew. However, in recent years
the job has come to be regarded as a lifetime career,
with conditions such as superannuation entitlements
designed to reflect this. It is now time that
pregnancy be seen as a normal part of that career and
the penalty attached to it removed.
(c) The Company's current practice is out of step with
virtually all other European airlines. In a survey of
14 European airlines, by the International Transport
Workers' Federation, 13 pay full cabin crew salary on
re-deployment, and 7 pay an additional amount in
respect of premium payments or allowances.
(d) The position of cabin crew is less favourable than
other public sector workers in comparable situations.
The Civil Service agreement on the operation of
V.D.U.'s would not result in a loss of pay for staff
re-deployed on pregnancy. Similarly, radiographers in
the health service do not lose pay for the period that
they are unable to carry out normal duties.
(e) The treatment of other staff who are re-deployed is
entirely different to that meted out to cabin crew
although cabin crew are the only group who specifically
cannot continue in their own job. In all other cases,
salary is retained either as a result of specific
agreements or established practice.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The conciliation recommendation ensures that the los
in income, for the cabin crew, is minimised. While
this recommendation would involve the Company in
additional cost, the Company nevertheless accepted
it.
(ii) The Company believe that it is unrealistic to expect
an employer to continue to pay on a higher level
scale for lower level work when the circumstances
giving rise to the transfer are not the fault of, or
capable of being influenced in any way by the
employer.
(iii) The present arrangement is found to be satisfactory
by the vast majority of pregnant cabin crew. If
there were to be a change in the level of pay for
alternative clerical work while pregnant, other than
that recommended by the conciliation council, the
numbers seeking such alternative employment would
increase and the Company's capacity to find and offer
such employment would be negatived. The number of
positions available at any time is quite small and
departmental heads may refuse to accept transfers on
the grounds that salary costs are prohibitive.
(iv) The clerical section of the Union are opposed to the
placement of pregnant cabin crew in clerical
positions and have advised clerical members that they