Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95208 Case Number: LCR14786 Section / Act: S26(3) Parties: TEAM AER LINGUS - and - CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising out of the 'seasonality' clause of Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR14552 which concerned the Company's rationalisation proposals.
Recommendation:
In its consideration of the arguments both written and verbal by
both parties at the hearing the Court had regard to (1) the
background which gave rise to the need for restructuring of work
practices and (2) the effect its Recommendation No. LCR14552 would
have on the Company/Union Comprehensive Agreement. The overall
thrust of its recommendation was to contribute to the stability of
Team and as a consequence the preservation of employment.
The difference between the parties which they seek clarification
lies in the two separate clauses:-
A. Day working Page 7 LCR14552
B. Seasonality Page 5 LCR14552
The restructuring of day workers' attendance, Monday through
Saturday, with variable starting and finishing times does not give
an 88-hour fortnight and is not limited to the period to which
seasonality applies. It is both possible and practical for the
seasonality clause to operate in a manner which will not require
dayworkers to work two consecutive Saturdays. Any variation would
only occur with individual or Union consent.
The Court has examined the Union's argument that "rostered" within
its comprehensive agreement has a specific connotation i.e. it
relates to shift work and excludes day workers.
The Court does not accept that it is bound by the Terms of the
Domestic Agreement and in its Recommendation No. LCR14552 set out
changes which profoundly altered that Agreement in order to secure
the future employment of the workforce.
Seasonality in the Court's view was intended to provide the
Company with the means to meet customers' overhaul requirements
(both for receiving and return of aircraft) and most importantly
to accept orders which otherwise would be turned away. Clearly to
maximise this objective all staff, both shift workers and day
workers, would be required.
Any dilution or limitation would be detrimental to the main
objective i.e. returning the Company to profitability and
sustaining employment. It was the intention that both day workers
and shift workers would be involved in seasonality.
Finally, the Court recommends that the priveleges removed by
Management be restored to the workers immediately.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95208 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14786
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(3), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TEAM AER LINGUS
AND
CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising out of the 'seasonality' clause of Labour
Court Recommendation No. LCR14552 which concerned the
Company's rationalisation proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 26th August, 1994, the Court issued LCR14552 which
recommended on various issues connected with the
Company's rationalisation proposals. The section on
seasonality recommended as follows:-
"The Court considers it essential to restate that the
Company does not wish to have "Seasonal Workers".
Its objective is to retain year-round employment for
workers with 52 weeks' pay per year. It must be
understood that the arranging of the work patterns
comes within the control of management and that the
above proposals will affect only those departments
in which the work flow demands this type of work
patterns. The Court recognises the need for the
introduction of flexible working patterns to meet
existing business demands and recommends as
follows:-
1. (a) For peak periods of up to 30 weeks p.a.,
staff may be rostered to alternative five
and six day working weeks on the basis of an
88-hour fortnight. A notional premium of
time plus a half should be implemented with
regard to hours between 80 and 88 per
fortnight in the peak period.
The practical application of this premium
should be as follows:-
8 hours credited towards summer leave to be
accumulated in days only and to be rostered
off en block in the valley periods to suit
the respective business support unit. The
further four hours to be paid fortnightly.
Should operational demands prevent
management from allocating all seasonal
leave then the balance outstanding will be
paid to staff by 30th September.
Time above 88 hours per fortnight to be paid
at appropriate overtime rate;
(b) For the valley periods, staff may be
rostered 40 hours per week with overtime
hours above 40 to be paid at appropriate
rate".
2. On 10th December, 1994, the Company required a large
number of dayworkers to work a seasonal Saturday. The
Unions objected claiming that the Company's directive
contravened the "dayworking" clause of LCR14552. The
Company invoked article 26 of the Tradesman's Agreement
and stated that failure to comply with their directives
would result in disciplinary action being taken.
Disciplinary action was subsequently taken against some
workers and following discussions, the parties agreed to
refer the dispute to the Labour Court.
3. By letter dated 24th March, 1995, the Group of Unions
referred the issue of 'seasonality and its
ramifications' to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on
5th May, 1995.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Court's Recommendation clearly dealt with the issue
of dayworking (details supplied). On 10th December,
1994, the Company directed a large number of dayworkers
to work on a Saturday in accordance with the seasonality
clause of LCR14552. The Company's directive clearly
contravenes the section of LCR14552 which deals with
dayworking.
2. The Unions accepted the position on dayworking as
outlined by the Court. The Company's action breached
the terms of the Court's Recommendation. Despite this,
the Company disciplined a number of workers who refused
to work a 6 day week, on a seasonal basis, while
allocated to dayworking.
3. The Company's action disregarded the terms of LCR14552
and was a misuse of clause 26 of the Tradesman's
Agreement (details supplied). The Company is seeking a
major concession from dayworkers which it did not seek
in its original submission to the Court. Therefore the
Court, could not have considered the issue in LCR14552.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In LCR14552, the Court accepted the Company's position
that seasonality applies to workers from departments in
which the work-flow demands it. There was never any
differentiation on seasonal working between day and
shift workers. The objective of seasonal working was to
maintain year round employment for the Company's
workforce.
2. Seasonality was introduced by the Company in October,
1994. It has been widely used by many departments and
by all categories of worker (details supplied). In line
with the intent of LCR14552, the Company has undertaken
not to roster dayworkers to work on 2 consecutive
Saturdays.
3. The application of the seasonality clause from LCR14552
has been successful and cost-effective. Its continued
application is essential as a means of addressing the
peaks and valleys of the business. The limitation of
the application of the seasonality clause to
craftworkers on shift would have widespread implications
across all staff groupings.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its consideration of the arguments both written and verbal by
both parties at the hearing the Court had regard to (1) the
background which gave rise to the need for restructuring of work
practices and (2) the effect its Recommendation No. LCR14552 would
have on the Company/Union Comprehensive Agreement. The overall
thrust of its recommendation was to contribute to the stability of
Team and as a consequence the preservation of employment.
The difference between the parties which they seek clarification
lies in the two separate clauses:-
A. Day working Page 7 LCR14552
B. Seasonality Page 5 LCR14552
The restructuring of day workers' attendance, Monday through
Saturday, with variable starting and finishing times does not give
an 88-hour fortnight and is not limited to the period to which
seasonality applies. It is both possible and practical for the
seasonality clause to operate in a manner which will not require
dayworkers to work two consecutive Saturdays. Any variation would
only occur with individual or Union consent.
The Court has examined the Union's argument that "rostered" within
its comprehensive agreement has a specific connotation i.e. it
relates to shift work and excludes day workers.
The Court does not accept that it is bound by the Terms of the
Domestic Agreement and in its Recommendation No. LCR14552 set out
changes which profoundly altered that Agreement in order to secure
the future employment of the workforce.
Seasonality in the Court's view was intended to provide the
Company with the means to meet customers' overhaul requirements
(both for receiving and return of aircraft) and most importantly
to accept orders which otherwise would be turned away. Clearly to
maximise this objective all staff, both shift workers and day
workers, would be required.
Any dilution or limitation would be detrimental to the main
objective i.e. returning the Company to profitability and
sustaining employment. It was the intention that both day workers
and shift workers would be involved in seasonality.
Finally, the Court recommends that the priveleges removed by
Management be restored to the workers immediately.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.