Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92631 Case Number: LCR13794 Section / Act: S26(5) Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning proposed redundancies and revised working schedules.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
and taking into account the urgency of arriving at a settlement
recommends as follows in relation to the main item in dispute.
(1) PREMIUM PAYMENT - 10% Interim payment as claimed by the
Unions to come into effect immediately the 6 day schedule
comes into operation.
Having regard to the Company's difficulties the parties
agree to nominate financial experts to examine the
Company's trading position, at the end of the next
financial year. Should the experts determine that the
Company has returned to profitability the 10% premium
recommended above will be increased to 15% with effect
from 1st April, 1994. If agreement cannot be reached it
is open to either party to pursue the claim through the
normal channels.
(2) REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS - The Court notes the terms of
agreement made by the parties and further recommends a
minimum payment of #3,000 (inclusive of all statutory
entitlements) be paid to staff volunteering for
redundancy.
(3) HOLIDAYS - An increase of 1 day on the twelve day basic
holidays. With regard to Public Holidays the Court is of
the view that the terms of the Holidays Employees Act,
1973 Section 4(1)(b) should be adhered to.
The Court considers that all the other items in dispute should be
capable of resolution by direct negotiations between the parties
when normal industrial relations have been restored. Accordingly
the Court is not making any recommendation on these items at this
time.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92631 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning proposed redundancies and revised working
schedules.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced operations in 1980 and currently employs
639 people. It provides jet engine overhaul facilities to
domestic and international airlines.
3. Due to the continuing recession in the airline industry the
Company, in August, 1992, proposed to make 137 workers redundant.
Meetings at local level between the parties took place on 24th and
27th August, 1992. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 15th September, 1992. The Industrial
Relations Officer (I.R.O.) put forward a number of proposals
(details supplied to the Court), the main item of which was a
revision of the working week and shift system i.e. the workers
would now work a 78-hour fortnight over a 7-day week on a
three-and four-day week basis. Under these proposals 108 of the
137 workers proposed for redundancy would be retained. The
I.R.O.'s proposals were rejected by the workforce. The Company
subsequently modified the I.R.O.'s proposals to provide for a
6-day working week. Monday to Saturday inclusive which would
require 3x13 hours per week.
4. A number of meetings were held at local level. During the
course of these meetings the Unions formulated the following
claim:
- A 20% premium to come into effect when the Company
returned to profitability.
- A lesser premium of 10% to be paid until the Company
returns to profitability.
- The difference between the premiums to be banked and paid
when the Company returns to profitability.
- Arrangements to be agreed that would provide for the
transition from the interim payment to the standard
payment.
- Three working days (one week's) additional holiday.
- 13 hours pay (or days holiday in lieu) to apply in respect
of a statutory holiday falling on a rest day.
- A days holiday (13 hours) to apply in respect of service
holidays.
- An enhanced early retirement package.
- A minimum payment of #4,000 to be paid to staff
volunteering redundancy.
(A claim for paid breaks was conceded by the Company).
The Company offered the following:
- An interim payment of 5% to be paid pending the return of
the Company to sustained profitability.
- Retrospective payments would not be acceptable in any
circumstances.
- The Company would be willing to respond favourably to an
increase on the twelve day basic holiday vacation subject
to agreement on total package.
Further meetings were held at which the Unions modified their
claim to 19% in respect of the premium and the Company modified
its offer to 11%.
5. As no agreement was reached the Company announced that it
intended to proceed with the redundancies and issued redundancy
notice forms R.P.I. The Unions served strike notice to take
effect on 16th October, 1992 the date on which the first phase of
the redundancies were to take place. The Labour Court, under
Section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, invited the
parties to attend a Court investigation. A Court hearing took
place on 14th October, 1992. The Court issued its recommendation
by letter dated 14th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Unions' accept the Company's present difficulties.
However, when the Company returns to profitability it will
still enjoy the benefits of the revised working arrangements.
2. The Unions' claim is not unreasonable in view of the
benefits which will accrue to the Company.
3. The main points of difference between the parties concern
the interim payment (10%) which must apply immediately;
arrangements for moving from the interim payment to the
optimum payment which must be based on a time scale; and
holidays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Because of the continuing recession in the airline
industry the Company finds itself in a loss-making position.
2. The Company's proposals are an effort to curtail losses,
contain costs and secure employment for the future.
3. The Unions and staff have been made aware, on a regular
basis of the situation as it developed.
4. The outlook in the market-place at present gives further
cause for concern with little pick-up anticipated before the
financial year 1994/1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
and taking into account the urgency of arriving at a settlement
recommends as follows in relation to the main item in dispute.
(1) PREMIUM PAYMENT - 10% Interim payment as claimed by the
Unions to come into effect immediately the 6 day schedule
comes into operation.
Having regard to the Company's difficulties the parties
agree to nominate financial experts to examine the
Company's trading position, at the end of the next
financial year. Should the experts determine that the
Company has returned to profitability the 10% premium
recommended above will be increased to 15% with effect
from 1st April, 1994. If agreement cannot be reached it
is open to either party to pursue the claim through the
normal channels.
(2) REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS - The Court notes the terms of
agreement made by the parties and further recommends a
minimum payment of #3,000 (inclusive of all statutory
entitlements) be paid to staff volunteering for
redundancy.
(3) HOLIDAYS - An increase of 1 day on the twelve day basic
holidays. With regard to Public Holidays the Court is of
the view that the terms of the Holidays Employees Act,
1973 Section 4(1)(b) should be adhered to.
The Court considers that all the other items in dispute should be
capable of resolution by direct negotiations between the parties
when normal industrial relations have been restored. Accordingly
the Court is not making any recommendation on these items at this
time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
13th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.