Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89567 Case Number: LCR12545 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of approximately 455 UK/ITX cabin crew for compensation for the introduction of a new in-flight service on the Company's Dublin/London route.
Recommendation:
6. The Court noted at the hearing that there was a shared
understanding by the parties of the pressures of competition and
the need to retain and improve market-share on the U.K. routes.
There seemed to be acceptance that effective cost management was
one element in the battle but that aggressive marketing and
customer service were equally important.
Despite this common ground and perhaps because of the fact that
relationships between the Company and the cabin crews had been
harmonious over many years, there appeared to the Court to be a
reluctance by both parties to get down to realistic negotiations
on this issue. The position was polarised on the Company's
inflexible acceptance of the Assessor's Report and the Union's use
of the situation to process a long-sought after but unrelated
claim for meal allowances and at the same time to introduce
restrictions which would be counter to the generally accepted
development of flexibility within the Company. It seemed to the
Court the neither party had sought a resolution outside their own
narrow terms of reference.
In the circumstances, the Court is reluctant to make a final
recommendation at this stage and as an interim measure recommends
that the parties get together to seek a resolution under a more
flexible agenda. The Court will provide the services of an
Industrial Relations Officer to chair the negotiations if
requested by the parties and in the event of agreement not being
reached by mid-October the Court will make a final recommendation.
Because of the importance of the service, the Court recommends
that in the interim the Cabin crews should serve hot-meals so that
the opposition air-line is not conceded a competitive edge.
As an aid to the parties in addressing the issue the Court makes
the following observations on the submissions already made:-
- the Court accepts the need for the service as argued by
the Company and views it as a positive step to counter
competition.
- the Court also accepts that the service will impose
significant pressures on cabin crews.
- the Court does not accept that there should be
restrictions imposed on double-runs to London as such
restrictions would be counter to the development of
flexibility which has been a major contributor to
improved performance by the Company.
- the introduction of a meal-allowance does not seem an
appropriate vehicle for compensation for cabin crews
because of its diminishing basis in other areas and
because of other obstacles.
- the Court considers that the earning of credits is an
appropriate form of compensation for the cabin crews
but that the Company should consider enhancing the
proposals of the assessor and providing even greater
inducement of the same nature to staff who opt to work
the service on a more extensive basis.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89567 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12545
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 455 UK/ITX cabin crew for
compensation for the introduction of a new in-flight service on
the Company's Dublin/London route.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to March of this year, the Company operated a two-class
service on its London flights - mainly a full meal and drinks
service in the Executive Class at the front of the aircraft and a
bar/tea and coffee service for the economy passengers at the rear.
In February, 1989, British Midland announced its decision to
operate the route with a Business Class Service throughout the
plane and a fare structure that was pitched between the executive
and economy fares of Aer Lingus.
The Company consequently introduced a new Classic Service for all
non executive class passengers, involving a high grade in flight
service with meal, tea coffee and drinks service along with other
items. The executive class service was also improved. This
up-graded service had to be put together and implemented over a
very short period of time. After some discussions in the
short-time available prior to the introduction date, the Union on
behalf of the cabin crew agreed to a two week trial with an
interim review after one week.
In conjunction with the proposed introduction of the new service,
the Union lodged the following claim:-
- flight duties commencing before 06.30 to be
rostered in isolation,
- no double London flight duties,
- payment of a sterling meal allowance on the same
basis as is applicable to continental or
trans-Atlantic destinations.
The Company was agreeable to rostering pre 06.30 flights in
isolation but rejected the other two claims. At a general meeting
on the 10th April, the claimants decided that with the exception
of breakfast, they would only agree to operate a cold meal service
throughout the aircraft and that concession of the 3 point claim
already submitted was a pre-condition to the operation of the new
service. They also decided that should this be unacceptable to
the Company, they would revert to the pre-Classic Service with
effect from the 17th April. The new service operated on a trial
basis for two weeks which ended on the 14th April following which
the claimants withdrew co-operation. Following discussions on the
20th April it was agreed
(a) to establish a committee composed of a Company nominee,
a Union nominee and an independent chairperson to
examine the feasibility of the new service,
(b) to appoint the independent chairman as a third party to
examine all aspects of the U.K. working conditions
package and to recommend on the Union's compensation
claim.
3. The report of the Feasibility Study Group was issued in June
and subject to certain modifications it found the delivery of the
service to be practical (details supplied to the Court). The
report on compensation was issued in July and recommended the
following:-
- Compensation should be made for all double flight
duties actually operated on the following basis
Double London flight duties - 2 credits
(worth between #4.90 and #4.20)
Other double flight duties - 1 credit
(worth between #2.45 and #2.10)
- The definition of a double flight duty to be any flight
duty involving two overseas departures from Ireland
with a single duty period. Other details covering
these arrangements should be finalised in discussions
between management and staff for inclusion in the final
report.
- Discussions take place on the operating arrangements
for the Rear Galley management functions on the Classic
Service.
Compensation to be on the equivalence of a #500 p.a.
payment to full-time position.
- Regrading of the European Senior Group operating
flights with normal cabin crew complements of three or
more (including the Senior) subject to agreement
between the staff and management on enhancement of the
case in relation to C.S.S. Seniors
Compensation for this regrading to be #500 p.a.
- Existing commitments to ensure the most equitable
distribution of duties on rostering should be continued
by management but it is recognised that on occasion
circumstances will yield unusual patterns.
At a general meeting the claimants rejected the compensation
proposal and re-activated their earlier decision to revert to the
old service. Further local level discussions failed to resolve
the issue and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference on the 24th August
failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 30th August, 1989. The Court subsequently
issued its recommendation to the parties on the 4th September.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For many years, the UK/ITX route has been regarded as
the least attractive option for cabin crew. It was regarded
as having the heaviest on-board workload, the most flexible,
onerous and disruptive rosters and working pattern and being
the lowest remunerated when the full package of pay and
allowances is taken into account. This is borne out by the
fact that of the 400 approximately cabin crew who operate this
route, only 6 have volunteered to work it - the remainder are
there mainly because they are not sufficiently senior to get
on the route of their choice. Meanwhile, the Dublin/London
route which is the mainstay of the UK/ITX schedule has been by
far the most important and profitable route in the Aer Lingus
network. The demand to effect improvements in UK/ITX working
conditions long preceded the London Classic Service which,
following the steamroller-like attempts to introduce it, both
added massively to the existing grievances and turned it into
the vehicle through which redress would be sought.
2. A double London is a series of flights which go
Dublin/London/Dublin/London/Dublin within the same period.
Cabin crew are not seeking that all doubles be eliminated but
that for example, a Dublin/London/Dublin could only be
combined with a flight to another U.K. or domestic
destination.
3. The Union is seeking the elimination of Double Londons
primarily because with the addition of the new Service, the
workload involved - concentrated as it is within a short
space of time - while working in a pressurised tube is
excessive and cannot be sustained over a period. Crew are not
capable of delivering continuously the standard of service for
which they joined the Company and for which they were trained.
By the 4th leg in particular of such a duty, it is
questionable whether the required level of alertness is
maintained to adequately discharge their primary function of
safeguarding passengers in an emergency.
4. 4. Traditionally, 2-class catering flights have not been
coupled. It was for this reason that over a decade ago the
Company agreed to the non-coupling of a continental flight
with another flight on the same duty day. At the time that
this was agreed, U.K. flights did not include a catering
service so the question of non-coupling did not arise. As
further confirmation of this approach, it can be seen that as
soon as an Executive Class Service was introduced on London in
the early 1980's, the senior Hostess/Steward who normally
works in the Executive Class delivering the catering service
immediately ceased to have a liability to Double Londons. Air
Hostesses/Stewards now provide an equivalent or enhanced
service to passengers under a greater time constraint so it
seems less than reasonable that they should be required to do
Double Londons when nobody else is.
5. Clause 2.1.3. of the Working Conditions Agreement
provides that Continental scheduled services cabin crew who
have a 20% commitment to UK flying shall not be required to
operate a Double London flight as part of that commitment.
Therefore, it would seem that there is no sound comparative
reason why UK/ITX basic grade cabin crew should alone be
required to operate doubles on the London route particularly
with the arrival of the high pressure Classic Service. This
was at least partially recognised in an earlier offer from the
Company which limited the number of Double Londons planned to
one per fortnight.
6. The meal allowance is an allowance calculated in the
local currency based on the cost of a meal in the airport
restaurant at the out-station and is payable for all duties in
excess of 5 hours chock to chock. This non-payment of the
allowance for meals has been a major source of grievance to
UK/ITX cabin crew for several years and particularly since a
catering service became the norm on UK/ITX flights. This has
become further aggravated following the recruitment of
hundreds of new cabin crew who having sampled conditions on
other routes, are now compulsorily deployed to UK/ITX and
suffer a considerable loss compared to colleagues on
continental scheduled services or transatlantic.
7. The allowance is at present paid to all cabin crew on
Transatlantic, Continental Scheduled Services and UK/ITX
routes for duties in excess of 5 hours chock to chock provided
that the duty involves flights to other than UK or domestic
destinations. There is no logical reason why this allowance
should not be payable to UK/ITX Cabin Crew who, for example,
do two flights to London in a nine-hour period when it is
payable to anybody else who does a six-hour duty to a non-UK
destination. The sterling meal allowance therefore is
something which logically should apply to the U.K. operation
on its own merits, notwithstanding the additional arguments
for its concession as compensation for the introduction of the
Classic Service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In order to protect its London business the Company has
made very costly adjustments in its inflight services. This
is not a case of improved efficiency or cost reduction. Nor
is it a development which would justify compensation; in fact
it is quite the opposite and imposed a major financial penalty
on the airline. It meant substantially more cabin crew
(approximately 65 people or 55 man years) and other increased
costs totalling over #6 million plus fare yield or revenue
losses. Cabin crew and other staff would certainly support
the need to respond vigorously to competition. Some have
queried the form and extent of this response but it was based
on market intelligence and export opinion and the results to
date show it to have been successful.
2. The airline has been undergoing radical change over the
past two years not only on London but throughout all areas of
air transport activities. New routes, expanding business,
more aircraft, a greater variety of services and more
sophistication in marketing and delivering products, lower and
more complex fares ad more competition are all features of the
present scene. Of particular significance has been the
increased rate of change and the speed with which the Company
has to adapt to these changes. These developments have
affected staff in all areas of the airline including frontline
and operational staff. To reward one group and especially to
increase a Conciliation Council's recommendation because of
industrial action would be very damaging to peaceful and
orderly industrial relations in the airline.
3. The cabin crew claims include both money and a further
work restriction. They have been expressed in various ways
and can perhaps be summarised as approximately #10 net for any
duty of five hours or more from flight departure from home
until final arrival home - together with a work restriction of
no two Dublin/London returns in the one duty. This is a
somewhat contradictory approach. If anything the approach to
earning more should be allied to greater flexibility and
availability for work. Arrangements that have evolved over
the years already make for grave problems in rostering and
achieving reasonable utilisation in respect of flight
schedules requirement. Further restrictions could well make
for an intolerable situation.
5. 4. The Classic Service has meant extra effort during the
serving period on London flights and represents a difference
in the nature of the service offered to passengers. However,
this must be seen in the overall context of duty time and
demands on cabin crew. For the largest group of cabin crew
concerned - the UK/ITX Group - and excluding annual leave
entitlements - the maximum number of duty days they can be
rostered for in a four week period is nineteen and the maximum
duty hours are 156. Based on a sample from a 4 week peak
roster period (31st July to 27th August) the average rostered
hours were 120 or 30 hours per week and allowing for
operational delays, etc, this in practice worked out at 130
hours per four week period or 32.5 hours per week. These are
average figures and will vary in individual cases. The above
refers to duty hours and flying hours would of course be of
necessity significantly lower. For the same referred to above
the average flying hours were 54 for the 4 week period.
5. All cabin crew get certain variable, non-taxable
allowances. These allowances have been in place for well over
a decade or more and variation to their application would not
be appropriate in the current situation. The claimants are
already in a well paid category. Apart from basic salary they
receive extra payments under the Credit Scheme. Applying an
'average' annual credit payment, earnings for cabin crew can
be said to be of the order of #9,712 to #16,891 p.a. based on
service. Seniors earn more and all are entitled to some
allowances.
6. The Court is requested to recommend the ending of the
current action and the acceptance of the Conciliation
Council's recommendation including further exploration of the
scope available under the "Earnings Capacity" paragraph.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court noted at the hearing that there was a shared
understanding by the parties of the pressures of competition and
the need to retain and improve market-share on the U.K. routes.
There seemed to be acceptance that effective cost management was
one element in the battle but that aggressive marketing and
customer service were equally important.
Despite this common ground and perhaps because of the fact that
relationships between the Company and the cabin crews had been
harmonious over many years, there appeared to the Court to be a
reluctance by both parties to get down to realistic negotiations
on this issue. The position was polarised on the Company's
inflexible acceptance of the Assessor's Report and the Union's use
of the situation to process a long-sought after but unrelated
claim for meal allowances and at the same time to introduce
restrictions which would be counter to the generally accepted
development of flexibility within the Company. It seemed to the
Court the neither party had sought a resolution outside their own
narrow terms of reference.
In the circumstances, the Court is reluctant to make a final
recommendation at this stage and as an interim measure recommends
that the parties get together to seek a resolution under a more
flexible agenda. The Court will provide the services of an
Industrial Relations Officer to chair the negotiations if
requested by the parties and in the event of agreement not being
reached by mid-October the Court will make a final recommendation.
Because of the importance of the service, the Court recommends
that in the interim the Cabin crews should serve hot-meals so that
the opposition air-line is not conceded a competitive edge.
As an aid to the parties in addressing the issue the Court makes
the following observations on the submissions already made:-
- the Court accepts the need for the service as argued by
the Company and views it as a positive step to counter
competition.
- the Court also accepts that the service will impose
significant pressures on cabin crews.
- the Court does not accept that there should be
restrictions imposed on double-runs to London as such
restrictions would be counter to the development of
flexibility which has been a major contributor to
improved performance by the Company.
- the introduction of a meal-allowance does not seem an
appropriate vehicle for compensation for cabin crews
because of its diminishing basis in other areas and
because of other obstacles.
- the Court considers that the earning of credits is an
appropriate form of compensation for the cabin crews
but that the Company should consider enhancing the
proposals of the assessor and providing even greater
inducement of the same nature to staff who opt to work
the service on a more extensive basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
10th October, 1989 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman