Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90623 Case Number: LCR13140 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRITISH MIDLAND - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for recognition.
Recommendation:
5. In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that
the Company recognise the A.T.G.W.U.'s right to represent those
employees who are in membership.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90623 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13140
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BRITISH MIDLAND
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1989 the Company started a Dublin/Heathrow service.
As part of this development it decided to do its own ramp handling
rather than using a third party. Ramp handling involves
loading/unloading baggage, driving, aircraft interior cleaning and
cargo handling. The workers involved are part of the customer
services fuction. In April, 1990 the workers joined A.T.G.W.U.
and the Union wrote to the Company on 2nd May, 1990 requesting a
meeting to discuss this. On 24th May, 1990 the Company wrote to
the Union stating that in the last twelve months the Company had
extended its range of customer service activities at various
airports and had now standardised the terms and conditions
relating to customer services staff. On 22nd August, 1990 the
Union referred the matter to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court and the Company was invited to attend a conciliation
conference. However, the Company replied by letter of 4th
September, 1990 to the effect that in May, 1990 discussions were
held with the workers and that the Company presented a proposal to
extend to the workers the Company's grading structure which
applies to the Heathrow staff. Further, that the Company
explained that it recognised the union A.P.E.X. for these
particular positions and that this proposal was accepted. On 23rd
October, 1990 the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. The
Court investigated the dispute on 12th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All the workers concerned are in membership of this Union.
This Union rejects the Company's assertion that A.P.E.X. is
the appropriate Union for the category of workers concerned
because it represents the same category of workers in the UK.
It is inappropriate for the Company to argue that A.P.E.X.
should represent the workers here, when that union has no
members amongst the category of workers concerned. The
Company's suggestion that the workers concerned had accepted
the grading structure which operates in the U.K. and A.P.E.X.
as the appropriate union is not true and the workers do not
accept that A.P.E.X. should represent them. In a number of
similar cases in recent times the Labour Court has recommended
union recognition (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company started its Dublin/Heathrow service in
April, 1989 it decided to do its own ramp handling. At that
time the Company was not doing its own ramp handling at any
other airport and as a result there was not an existing set of
terms and conditions for this category of employment and a
hybrid set of terms and conditions was established. However,
in April, 1990 the Company established its own ramp services
facility at Heathrow Airport and it was decided that it should
be part of the customer services department. The Company
therefore consulted with A.P.E.X. the Union representing
customer services staff and agreed that the ramp staff should
be regarded as part of the customer services function and
enjoy the same terms and conditions. In May, 1990 the
Company explained these arrangements to the Dublin staff and
invited them to become part of these arrangements, which they
accepted.
2. There are major benefits to the staff in having the terms
and conditions of the customer services staff (details
supplied to the Court). It is essential that ramp services
and customer services staff work together as an effective team
without divisive differences in terms and conditions. In a
highly competitive industry it is essential to maintain
effective teamwork for the ongoing development of the Company
and the staff. The Company wishes to ensure full and open
communication with the staff and has established a Dublin
Staff Council, which meets bi-monthly. The Company's position
is that the A.T.G.W.U. is new to the airline sector and that
the workers would be better served by being represented by a
union which has knowledge of and understands the industry. In
the circumstances, the Union's recognition request should be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that
the Company recognise the A.T.G.W.U.'s right to represent those
employees who are in membership.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd January, 1991 Evelyn Owens
U.M./M O'C _______________
Deputy Chairman