Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95209 Case Number: LCR14738 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a 5.30 a.m. start.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully taken account of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. Given the current
circumstances of the airline, and the need to be competitive if
the Company is to be viable and employment is to be secured, it is
necessary that operations are carried out as cost effectively as
possible.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the 5.30 start be conceded
and implemented as soon as possible in accordance with the terms
outlined in the letter of 18th November, 1994.
In making this recommendation the Court calls on the Company to
seek to improve the frequency of the shift as far as possible. In
the implementation of the early start part-time staff should be
treated no less favourably than full-time staff.
The Court notes the Company assurances that the desk being opened
or closed by a Grade III will be used for the purpose of improving
the frequency of operation of the shift only and will not be used
as a precedent.
The operation of this shift should be reviewed by the parties
three months after its implementation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95209 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14738
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a 5.30 a.m. start.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns ten clerical staff employed at
Shannon. The current starting time for these workers is
6.00 a.m.. The Company proposes to introduce the 5.30
a.m. start because of the introduction of a scheduled
flight departing to Dublin at 6.25 a.m.. During local
level discussions the Company put forward various
rosters to provide for a 5.30 a.m. start (details
supplied to the Court). The Union rejected the
proposals.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
2nd June, 1994. No agreement was reached. Subsequently
further local discussions were held at which the Company
by letter dated 18th November, 1994, put forward a
revised proposal whereby the early start would be
limited to one in twelve days with every effort to keep
the early start to one every fourteen day's. The
proposal was rejected by the Union. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 20th March, 1995.
The court investigated the dispute on the 11th April,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unreasonable for the Company to ask workers to
work more than one 5.30 a.m. start in twenty one days.
The agreement at Dublin Airport provides that similar
staff work no more than one in twenty one days.
Part-time employees who are not guaranteed 40 hours must
enjoy the same arrangement as permanent staff i.e. 5.30
to 11.30 a.m..
2. The Company could reasonably increase the night roster
by one employee who would be in a position to deal with
passengers even earlier than 5.30 a.m..
3. The Union cannot accept the Company proposal that a
Grade 3 open the ticket desk on a rotational basis.
This would involve doing the work of a Grade 2. The
alternative is for the Company to utilise the "Acting
Grades Agreement" under which the workers could be
upgraded to Grade 2 on a temporary basis.
4. The workers concerned recognise and accept that the
Company had to change to survive. The workers concerned
have given substantial concessions to the Company by way
of productivity and have foregone wage agreements.
However, they feel in this instance the Company is
asking too much and giving nothing in return.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must have the ability to provide a cost
effective service at times which respond to customer
demands. The requirement for a 5.30 a.m. start is
essential and it is crucial to have the start without
restriction.
2. There are already staff rostered on night duty as
required. The Company cannot allocate an extra worker
to this roster as there would be insufficient work for
that employee.
3. The Company cannot appoint extra Grade 2's on an acting
basis as these workers would have to be appointed to the
substantive grade after twelve months, thus incurring
additional costs.
4. The economies of operating early morning marginal
flights with the costs associated with the arrangements
demanded by the workers concerned, are not viable. The
Company must match its resources with the needs of the
schedule, which in this case requires an early morning
start of 5.30 a.m. without additional costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully taken account of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. Given the current
circumstances of the airline, and the need to be competitive if
the Company is to be viable and employment is to be secured, it is
necessary that operations are carried out as cost effectively as
possible.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the 5.30 start be conceded
and implemented as soon as possible in accordance with the terms
outlined in the letter of 18th November, 1994.
In making this recommendation the Court calls on the Company to
seek to improve the frequency of the shift as far as possible. In
the implementation of the early start part-time staff should be
treated no less favourably than full-time staff.
The Court notes the Company assurances that the desk being opened
or closed by a Grade III will be used for the purpose of improving
the frequency of operation of the shift only and will not be used
as a precedent.
The operation of this shift should be reviewed by the parties
three months after its implementation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th April, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.