Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88318 Case Number: LCR11863 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RYANAIR - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim, on behalf of 17 permanent inflight crew at Dublin Airport, for the establishment of negotiating and representation procedures plus a review of working conditions.
Recommendation:
4. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union on
behalf of its members and negotiate a procedural agreement to
regulate the relations between the Company and the Union.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88318 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11863
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: RYANAIR
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of 17 permanent inflight crew at Dublin
Airport, for the establishment of negotiating and representation
procedures plus a review of working conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 20th April, 1988, the Union wrote to the Company
seeking a meeting to discuss the establishment of negotiating and
representation procedures and a review of working conditions
(including among other things working hours per week/duty, minimum
rest periods, rostering arrangements and annual leave). On the
22nd April, the Company responded by stating that:
"all its airline employees are shareholders or potential
shareholders and that Company policy in relation to personnel
matters is applied uniformly to all employees throughout the
airline. At present, all employees may review their
representative procedures and working conditions directly
through Management. Under these circumstances, it would be
inappropriate to consider any departure from this established
policy."
On the 26th April the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
The Company declined an invitation to attend a Labour Court
hearing on the 13th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By its very nature, the work pattern of inflight crew is
irregular and constantly subject to variation. It is
therefore not possible to set out a working conditions
agreement in the same straightforward fashion as is done for
day workers or even regular shiftworkers. The best that can
be done is to set out basic conditions and limitations which
form the basis on which the operation is planned. Day to day
issues should be dealt with reasonably at local negotiations
on the clear understanding that problems which conflict with
the basic limitations will be resolved on a reasonable basis.
The precise nature of these limitations should be tailored to
take account of the particular requirements of each operation.
Unfortunately, negotiation has not been possible in this
instance because of the Company's refusal to recognise the
role of both the Union and the Labour Court.
2. When formulating its claim in preparation for a meeting
with the Company, the Union deliberately did not seek to
change basic pay, shift pay or a range of other money related
items. This was not because it was felt that the rate of pay
was considered acceptable per se but rather because it was
felt that agreed basic working conditions had a higher
priority (details of changes being sought supplied to the
Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union on
behalf of its members and negotiate a procedural agreement to
regulate the relations between the Company and the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________
20th May, 1988. Chairman
D.H./J.C.