Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90195 Case Number: LCR13005 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning:- (1) The Company's Attendance Incentive Scheme. (2) Cabin Crew Severance Scheme (October 1988 to March, 1989).
Recommendation:
8. Having heard the submissions of both parties, the Court
recommends as follows:-
(1) Attendance Incentive Scheme.
The Court finds that this scheme was introduced unilaterally by
the Company in the expectation of an additional benefit to it
through reduced absenteeism to be awarded in the form of vouchers
subject to workers complying with conditions laid down by the
Company. It is not clear to the Court that the Company took
account of the terms of the Maternity Protection of Employees Act,
1981. The Court recommends that any employees covered by that Act
should have their entitlement to the voucher reward reviewed on
the basis that the period of maternity leave specified in the Act
should not count against them.
Further, the Court notes that the specific intention of the
Company scheme was to reduce casual absenteeism, whereas the Union
interpretation of the scheme was that it should award attendance.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Company agree
to discuss the conditions of the scheme with the Union, so that
the achievement of the objective to be rewarded, i.e. the
reduction/elimination of casual absenteeism, is best achieved.
(2) Cabin Crew Severance.
Taking into account the basis on which individual members of the
cabin crew staff opted to leave the company in a voluntary manner,
the Court does not find any grounds on which to recommend that the
terms agreed in each case should be reviewed.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90195 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13005
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning:-
(1) The Company's Attendance Incentive Scheme.
(2) Cabin Crew Severance Scheme (October 1988 to March,
1989).
BACKGROUND:
(1) The Company's Attendance Incentive Scheme.
2. In May 1988, the Company introduced a self financing
attendance incentive scheme, based on 100% attendance for the
period 1st June, 1988 to 30th October, 1988. The reward was an
#100 voucher. The scheme operated on a roll-up basis, thus for
the second period from 1st November 1988 to 31st March 1989, the
reward was a voucher to the value of #125 for those who had
previously qualified for the #100. A dispute arose when the Union
objected to exclusions in the scheme which resulted in workers not
qualifying for the award through no fault of their own. The
Company amended its original circular from "no sick leave,
certified or uncertified" to (March, 1989)" full attendance"
stating that annual, study, bereavement and up to two weeks unpaid
leave would not affect eligibility. The Union objected to the
following exclusions:-
(A) Permanent staff who had not completed 1 year of service.
(B) Female staff who were absent on maternity leave during any
portion of an accounting period.
(C) Cabin crew who were laid off due to pregnancy or for any
other reason during any portion of an accounting period.
(D) Workers who were granted adoptive leave or paternity leave in
a particular period.
As the issues were not resolved at local level they were referred
to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 14th February,
1990. They were the subject of a conciliation conference on 8th
March, 1990. No agreement was reached as the Company was adamant
that the purpose of the scheme was (1) to recognise/reward staff
with 100% attendance and (2) to reduce casual absenteeism amongst
workers. The Union requested a full Court hearing. The Company
agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on 24th August,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's initial circulars refer only to absence due
to sick leave. The scheme should not have been amended and
disimproved subsequently.
2. Cabin crew is a predominately female grade and
accordingly, the exclusion of pregnant women during any
portion of an accounting period would impact
disproportionately on women and cabin crew. In a somewhat
similar dispute relating to performance awards a Rights
Commissioner recommended that "employees who are on maternity
leave (or an extension of maternity leave) but not those on
additional maternity leave, are entitled to receive that
portion of the performance award relative to attendance for
each day of their leave (and its extension, if applicable)"
Ref. CW 57/86.
3. Cabin crew new intake are liable to periodic lay-offs
during their first five years of employment. This liability
reduces the number of cabin crew who may qualify for the
attendance bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The scheme was not designed to become part of basic pay or
allowances. It has strict eligibility regulations. By its
very nature two specific categories of staff are excluded,
namely - staff absent because of an occupational injury and
female staff absent due to pregnancy leave. Both categories
are given the benefit of the two weeks, as in the unpaid leave
situation before being excluded from the scheme. Cabin crew
must cease flying as soon as it becomes known that they are
pregnant. Such absences from duty could span three periods of
eligibility under the scheme.
2. The whole purpose of the scheme is to reward staff with an
attendance record which meets the criteria laid down. To
punch holes in the eligibility criteria and allow payment to
any individual absent from work, for any reason over an
extended period of time would remove the incentive to maintain
good attendance records and lead to the abandonment of the
scheme on the basis that one exception leads to another. The
scheme then becomes unmanageable.
4. 3. There is a very strong desire to continue the scheme which
has up to now successfully achieved all the aims laid down for
it. The scheme which is supported by all the workforce has
the unique distinction of being the first positive incentive
given to workers as a reward which was neither sought or
negotiated. It is now under pressure of a different kind in
that the novelty has worn off and absenteeism is on the rise,
making the scheme very marginal from the point of view of
being self financing. To include staff who are on extended
absences for whatever reason would lead to its cancellation.
BACKGROUND:
(2) Cabin Crew Severance Scheme (October, 1988 to March, 1989).
5. 1. Throughout the 1980's until 1989 the Company embarked on a
major cost cutting programme. Part of the programme involved
early retirement/voluntary severance packages. Specific
packages were available to cabin crew in 1983, 1985, 1987 and
1988/1989. Packages available to cabin crew were usually less
attractive than those available to ground staff as cabin crew
had to be replaced while ground staff were not. The Union
claimed that the 1988/1989 package which 94 cabin crew availed
of should have had the same severance terms as that which was
offered to ground staff at that time. All mainstream
clerical, administrative and superintendent staff received
full severance terms even though the scheme was announced at
the same time as a commitment was given to recruit a minimum
100 new permanent staff, by November 1989. The Union claimed
that the replacement argument was no longer valid and that all
categories of staff should have equal treatment. No agreement
was reached and the dispute was referred to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court on 23rd February, 1990. It was
the subject of conciliation conferences on the 12th July, 1989
and 8th March, 1990, (the issue was overtaken by the in flight
meals dispute). As no agreement was reached the Union
requested a full Court hearing. The Company agreed and the
Court investigated the dispute on 24th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The claim is based exclusively on the question of equity
of treatment. It does not comment, either way, on the
propriety of such severance packages, the actual level of
compensation payable or any of the many other issues which it
raises. The Company's stated policy is that all categories of
staff are entitled to equal treatment with regard to
remuneration and other conditions of employment. In the
absence of even the slightest evidence to justify the less
favourable treatment of cabin crew, the Court should find the
terms offered to be unfair and recommend that they be
remedied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Between November 1988 and June 1989, 350 new cabin crew
staff were recruited with an additional 150 between January
and April 1990. The integration of the new staff on to
airlines was a difficult task. Major service changes was also
being introduced at the same time. The Company had decided
not to make a severance package available to cabin crew at
that time i.e. October, 1988 to March, 1989 when a package was
available to ground staff. It was only as a result of
pressure from cabin crew themselves, that the Company agreed
to provide a limited scheme which would allow up to 60 staff
leave. In the end 94 experienced cabin crew availed of the
scheme. Many were only allowed to leave on the basis that
they would return to work to cater for specific summer 1989
peaks which caused cabin crew staff shortages.
2. The scheme was entirely voluntary and if anything, the
Company would have preferred if cabin crew staff remained in
employment. Each staff member of the cabin crew who availed
of the severance package made an individual contract with the
Company. All have left the airline since 31st March, 1989.
The Company is satisfied that their severance terms were fair
and equitable. Staff would not have availed of the terms if
they were unacceptable. The unexpectedly high acceptance of
the package is proof enough of this fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having heard the submissions of both parties, the Court
recommends as follows:-
(1) Attendance Incentive Scheme.
The Court finds that this scheme was introduced unilaterally by
the Company in the expectation of an additional benefit to it
through reduced absenteeism to be awarded in the form of vouchers
subject to workers complying with conditions laid down by the
Company. It is not clear to the Court that the Company took
account of the terms of the Maternity Protection of Employees Act,
1981. The Court recommends that any employees covered by that Act
should have their entitlement to the voucher reward reviewed on
the basis that the period of maternity leave specified in the Act
should not count against them.
Further, the Court notes that the specific intention of the
Company scheme was to reduce casual absenteeism, whereas the Union
interpretation of the scheme was that it should award attendance.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Company agree
to discuss the conditions of the scheme with the Union, so that
the achievement of the objective to be rewarded, i.e. the
reduction/elimination of casual absenteeism, is best achieved.
(2) Cabin Crew Severance.
Taking into account the basis on which individual members of the
cabin crew staff opted to leave the company in a voluntary manner,
the Court does not find any grounds on which to recommend that the
terms agreed in each case should be reviewed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__5th___September,__1990. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman