Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91600 Case Number: AD92123 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation S.T. 389/91 concerning claim for compensation for cabin crew operating 767 aircraft.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties.
The Court finds the claim is in reference to the disruption caused
during the proving period of an aircraft for the transatlantic
route. The Court notes that the Company required specific
arrangements for a period of time to carry out the necessary
checks to achieve approval.
By the very nature of the exercise it was not unreasonable to
expect that some difficulties could occur. Consequently it is the
view of the Court that the arrangements made should have included
some element for contingencies. The Court are also of the view
that it would have been more appropriate if the proving flights
had been carried out by the staff on a voluntary basis without any
precedent being created on either side for the future working of
the aircraft.
Given all of the circumstances the Court considers that no
compensation should be paid for the disruption which occurred.
However the Court considers that given its view that some element
should have been included to cover contingencies during the
proving period, a payment should be made in the amount of £20,000
to be distributed by the Union in such manner as they consider
equitable.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91600 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD12392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation S.T. 389/91 concerning claim for compensation for
cabin crew operating 767 aircraft.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company decided in 1989 that, by leasing two Boeing B767's
extended range aircraft, it would be capable of extending its
route network on the transatlantic to include Los Angeles. The
Company leased the two aircraft for a five year period. Delivery
of the aircraft was to take place in April and November, 1991. In
order to mount the operation on the Atlantic the Department of
Tourism, Transport and Communications require a proving period
known as EROPS. This entails precise ground maintenance checks
and an agreed number of take-offs and landings before the aircraft
can cross the atlantic. Consequently, the 767 aircraft were
required to operate three European flights a day for eight weeks.
Cabin crew members operating transatlantic flights were trained to
operate the 767 aircraft and an agreement was reached between the
Company and the Union to cover the eight week period of EROPS.
The Union claim rostering problems which the cabin crew members
experienced were not anticipated. These problems resulted in a
high level of dislocation and disturbance during the eight week
period and accordingly submitted a claim on behalf of the cabin
crew members for compensation for operating the 767 aircraft. The
Company rejected the claim. As no agreement could be reached at
local level the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner on 25th
September, 1991 recommended as follows:-
"I am satisfied that a prima facia case has been established
for compensation by the Union.
It is just not possible to quantify the amount having regard
to all the circumstances and particularly those listed in 2
above.
Accordingly, I recommend that the claim is more properly
processed through the new agreed procedures and that the
person properly to handle the case is the person who was
involved in January, 1991 in the case".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
Company which appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on 17th December, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is incomprehensible that a group who had agreed to
operate the 767 aircraft under benign conditions (not allowed
to other crews who fly to London) should subsequently seek
financial compensation.
2. The Company suffered record losses in air transport last
year and is currently going through the most financially
difficult period in its history.
3. The effect of the Gulf War and the recession in England
and the United States has resulted in the Company's current
difficulties.
4. Due to a serious downturn in business and poor prospects
on transatlantic routes, the Company decided not to fly the
767 aircraft to Los Angeles. The Company was contractually
obliged to take delivery of the two B767's for a five year
period but subsequently leased the aircraft to Aero Mexico.
5. In February, 1990 a recovery plan agreement (details with
the Court) was reached with the Union as a result of the
crisis facing the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The disruption to cabin crew members resulted in
considerable financial costs in respect of the following:-
(a) Additional child-minding fees.
(b) Additional travel costs.
(c) Reduced allowances.
2. Cabin crew members experienced severe disruption of sleep
patterns and to their social lives generally.
3. There was an unfair distribution of London flights.
4. Cabin crew rostered on transatlantic routes were switched
at short notice to shorthaul.
5. The Company refused to acknowledge that rostered days off
were guaranteed.
6. Disruption to rosters occurred when cabin crew operating
the reserve-on-call were obliged to cover both longhaul and
shorthaul flights.
7. Transatlantic cabin supervisors lost out financially to
their European Colleagues despite the fact that a number of
the supervisors operated the 767 aircraft for the full eight
weeks.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties.
The Court finds the claim is in reference to the disruption caused
during the proving period of an aircraft for the transatlantic
route. The Court notes that the Company required specific
arrangements for a period of time to carry out the necessary
checks to achieve approval.
By the very nature of the exercise it was not unreasonable to
expect that some difficulties could occur. Consequently it is the
view of the Court that the arrangements made should have included
some element for contingencies. The Court are also of the view
that it would have been more appropriate if the proving flights
had been carried out by the staff on a voluntary basis without any
precedent being created on either side for the future working of
the aircraft.
Given all of the circumstances the Court considers that no
compensation should be paid for the disruption which occurred.
However the Court considers that given its view that some element
should have been included to cover contingencies during the
proving period, a payment should be made in the amount of £20,000
to be distributed by the Union in such manner as they consider
equitable.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
21st January, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.