Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9633 Case Number: LCR15118 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Increase in ratio of temporary staff.
Recommendation:
The Court fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, together with the
documentation provided, and finds as follows:-
1. That there is substance in the Union's argument that the
Company has not used the temporary ratio in the manner
for which it was intended under the "Cahill Plan" (i.e.
to cover operational peaks).
2. That certain factors (details supplied to the Court)
have contributed to the year long shortfall in the
availability of permanent crew and the temporary ratio
being utilised in a manner not envisaged under the Plan.
3. That over the last two years the Company has experienced
an upturn in business.
4. That taking into account the above factors, together
with the extra Dublin - New York service during the
summer period and, in particular, the expansion plan to
open the Chicago route, the crew available to meet the
needs of the service is inadequate.
5. That if the Company is to operate on the most efficient
and cost effective footing, and is to
secure and, as far as possible, expand job
opportunities, there is a need for time to be given to
allow for the consolidation of the expansion plans.
While the expansion plans are being evaluated the Company
needs to have sufficient flexibility to ensure that, in the event
that the planned services do not prove to be successful, changes
can be made rapidly to avoid incurring significant additional
costs.
Accordingly, with a view to providing the necessary additional
crew and provide the flexibility required, the Court makes the
following recommendations:
(A) That the Company offers to appoint a number of
temporary crew to permanent positions.
The Court considers the appropriate number, given all
the circumstances, should be thirty (30).
(B) That for a period of thirty (30) weeks the number of
temporary crew be increased. The number to be employed
to be equivalent to the number required to crew the
extra Dublin - New York service (EI107). The Court
understands this to be forty (40).
(C) That during October, 1996, the Company and the Union
review the situation in all its aspects and, in
particular, examine the issue of temporary crew in the
context of paragraph 1 above.
(D) That the parties in the review also give consideration
to:-
(1) Terms and conditions of employment of
temporary crew.
(2) In week special Leave (Jobsharing)
(3) Summer Leave
(4) Effects of increased crew numbers and actions
to be taken in the light of developments on
the Chicago route.
(E) That in the event of disagreement between the parties
arising from the review, the issues in dispute be
referred to the Court for a Recommendation.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9633 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15118
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Increase in ratio of temporary staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the terms of the Cahill plan, it was agreed that
temporary staff could be recruited as cabin crew, and a ratio
of 15% of total permanent staff was set. There are
approximately 800 permanent crew at present, which gives the
Company the flexibility to employ 120 additional temporary
staff. The temporary staff are paid by the hour and usually
work 20-30 hours per week.
This Summer, the Company intends to expand its network to
Chicago, a second London airport and to increase the
Shannon/Belfast operation. There are also plans to operate a
supplementary summer service to new york (e1 107). the
company claims that it can only crew all of the above
schedules if there is an increase in the ratio of temporary
staff. according to the company, one of its problems is the
number of permanent staff on long-term sick leave or working
abroad on contracts. The Company now wants to increase the
ratio to 22.5% of permanent staff for 30 weeks in the year, to
cover for peak periods. The Union maintains that the
proposed increase would be in breach of the Cahill plan.
Following discussions at local level, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on 8th January, 1996.
There was no agreement reached between the parties and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30th January
1996, in accordance with Section 26(1), Industrial Relations
Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Cahill plan refers to the employment of temporary
staff as follows:
"A comprehensive agreement covering the employment of
temporary Cabin Crew for all bases will allow the
Company the flexibility to cover peak schedules and
extra business"
"A figure not exceeding 15% of the total permanent
Cabin Crew may be employed on a temporary basis".
The Company already has what it sought under the Cahill
plan. The peak schedules are usually the summer months
and Christmas, yet the Company has already used 110
temporary staff during winter, 1995. The temporary
staff are not being used at the proper seasonal times,
as per the agreement.
2. Temporary staff do not enjoy the same conditions as
permanent workers, who are guaranteed payment of 35
hours per week. Temporary staff are paid by the hour on
the lowest point of the scale. They have no job
security. Increasing the number of temporary staff is a
form of cheap labour for the Company, which has been
highly profitable in the last two years.
3. At the time of the Cahill plan, the Company stated that
it would start to make temporary staff permanent once
the 15% ratio was fulfilled. There are 10 temporary
workers on a panel awaiting permanency at present. If
the number of temporaries is increased to 22.5%, there
will be little prospect of them getting permanent jobs
in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has gradually consolidated its position in
the last 2 years. This has involved the full use of the
permanent work force. With as many as 80 permanent
workers missing at any given time (through long-term
sick leave or contracts abroad) it means that the number
of temporary workers is not sufficient to cover peak
periods. The Company intends to expand its network to
Chicago in 1996. It also decided to lease an aircraft
(including crew and pilots) to operate its supplementary
summer service to New York. It would not make sense to
provide a permanent staff for these ventures until they
have proven successful. It is for this reason that the
Company needs an increase in temporary staff.
2. Temporary staff enjoy the same conditions as permanent
staff and get the same pay for hours worked.
Temporary staff cannot be made permanent until vacancies
arise. The Company has to hold open the position of
staff on long-term sick leave. If the Company had use
of the 80 permanent workers who are unavailable, there
would be no need for an increase in temporary workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, together with the
documentation provided, and finds as follows:-
1. That there is substance in the Union's argument that the
Company has not used the temporary ratio in the manner
for which it was intended under the "Cahill Plan" (i.e.
to cover operational peaks).
2. That certain factors (details supplied to the Court)
have contributed to the year long shortfall in the
availability of permanent crew and the temporary ratio
being utilised in a manner not envisaged under the Plan.
3. That over the last two years the Company has experienced
an upturn in business.
4. That taking into account the above factors, together
with the extra Dublin - New York service during the
summer period and, in particular, the expansion plan to
open the Chicago route, the crew available to meet the
needs of the service is inadequate.
5. That if the Company is to operate on the most efficient
and cost effective footing, and is to
secure and, as far as possible, expand job
opportunities, there is a need for time to be given to
allow for the consolidation of the expansion plans.
While the expansion plans are being evaluated the Company
needs to have sufficient flexibility to ensure that, in the event
that the planned services do not prove to be successful, changes
can be made rapidly to avoid incurring significant additional
costs.
Accordingly, with a view to providing the necessary additional
crew and provide the flexibility required, the Court makes the
following recommendations:
(A) That the Company offers to appoint a number of
temporary crew to permanent positions.
The Court considers the appropriate number, given all
the circumstances, should be thirty (30).
(B) That for a period of thirty (30) weeks the number of
temporary crew be increased. The number to be employed
to be equivalent to the number required to crew the
extra Dublin - New York service (EI107). The Court
understands this to be forty (40).
(C) That during October, 1996, the Company and the Union
review the situation in all its aspects and, in
particular, examine the issue of temporary crew in the
context of paragraph 1 above.
(D) That the parties in the review also give consideration
to:-
(1) Terms and conditions of employment of
temporary crew.
(2) In week special Leave (Jobsharing)
(3) Summer Leave
(4) Effects of increased crew numbers and actions
to be taken in the light of developments on
the Chicago route.
(E) That in the event of disagreement between the parties
arising from the review, the issues in dispute be
referred to the Court for a Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th March,1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.