Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8765 Case Number: LCR11064 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the failure of the Company to recall a worker, who was employed on a seasonal basis, for the 1986 season.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that there is disagreement between the parties
as to the status of the proposed agreement in 1978. Nevertheless
it is evident to the Court that custom and practice which has been
followed since 1980 indicates that there was at least tacit
agreement to the implementation of its terms.
In view of the above the Court considers that in the circumstances
of this case the Company acted in a reasonable manner and does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8765 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11064
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11064
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the failure of the Company to recall a
worker, who was employed on a seasonal basis, for the 1986 season.
Background:
2. Because of the nature of its business the Company employs
part-time workers on a seasonal basis between the months of April
and October each year. These positions are filled following
advertisements. In 1986 for the first time in a number of years
the Company advertised for full-time operatives. Over 2,000
applications were received and of these 500 were interviewed. As
there was such a large number of applications the Company did not
advertise for part-time workers, instead these positions were
offered to some of these applicants. The worker concerned was
employed as a part-time operative on a three-day week from 21st
May, 1984 to 28th October, 1984 and as a cleaner from 13th May,
1985 to 29th October, 1985. He applied for a permanent position
in 1986, he was interviewed and not considered suitable. He was
not offered a part-time position either. The Union made
representations to the Company on the worker's behalf. An
investigation by a Rights Commissioner was sought by the Union.
The Company refused to accede to this request. The Union then
referred the matter to the Labour Court on 22nd January, 1987
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 4th March, 1987. Prior to the
hearing the workers undertook to accept the recommendation of the
Court.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) As a seasonal worker he built up an entitlement to
recall under the terms of the 1971 Operative Grades
Agreement, which states inter-alia 'Seasonal employees
will be eligible for further periods of temporary
employment provided they have been declared suitable
for seasonal work by their supervisors. They will be
offered subsequent periods of work without being
required to reapply, and total cumulative seasonal
service will determine the order in which such offers
will be made.' Whilst it is true to say that the
worker did reapply, this must not be seen in anyway as
deflecting from his conviction in his entitlement to
recall.
(b) There is nothing on the worker's record which suggests
that he was other than a good and diligent worker. He
was satisfactory. At the end of his second season
there were still no indications that his employment
record was other than satisfactory.
(c) The Company cite a letter from them to the Union on
28th October, 1978 as a basis for a revised agreement
concerning the employment of operatives on a full and
part-time basis. The Union deny that any formal
agreement was entered into at that time and that the
contents of that letter are proposals only.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The worker or indeed any individual employed on a
seasonal basis does not have a right to future
employment or to special consideration for employment
in the airline. He was clearly advised of the
temporary nature of his employment on both occasions at
interview and by letter and accepted seasonal
employment on the basis.
(ii) The present arrangements for the recruitment of both
seasonal and permanent staff are fair and reasonable
both in regard to the needs of the airline and
aspirations of potential job applicants. These
arrangements have been in operation with the agreement
of the unions since 1979.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that there is disagreement between the parties
as to the status of the proposed agreement in 1978. Nevertheless
it is evident to the Court that custom and practice which has been
followed since 1980 indicates that there was at least tacit
agreement to the implementation of its terms.
In view of the above the Court considers that in the circumstances
of this case the Company acted in a reasonable manner and does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
13th March, 1987
M.D./J.C.