FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Crewing arrangement for flight EI 107 (Dublin-New York).
BACKGROUND:
2. In order to service the Transatlantic low leisure summer-only market, Aer Lingus 'hired in' an L-1011 Aircraft from British Caledonian Airways. The hire was to be a 'wet-lease' arrangement i.e. aircraft crewed by Caledonian pilots and cabin staff.
Following representations from the Union the Company agreed to use Aer Lingus cabin crew as far as possible. The Union is seeking the following:-
(1) Staffing levels to be 10 Aer Lingus cabin crew. British Caledonian personnel would not form part of the working crew.
(2) Three rest days after every Transatlantic duty.
(3) Compensation for the work involved on the L-1011.
The Company propose to operate the aircraft with a cabin crew of 8 Aer Lingus/2 Caledonian staff. The Company claims that the aircraft (L-1011) will be operated under the British Caledonian Air Operators Certificate (AOC) which is subject to approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the U.K. The approval by CAA is on the basis of 2 Caledonian cabin crew on board for all operations.
The CAA approved duel licensing allowing cabin crew to work on both L-1011 and A330 Aircrafts. This involved setting up a volunteer group to work purely Transatlantic flying with a mix of E.I. 107 operations and A330 flights. Following discussions at local level the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At conciliation both sides agreed that arrangements for training of staff on the L-1011 would proceed. As agreement could not be reached on the substantive issue the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 10th May, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th May, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is concerned that the Company are continuously bringing forward plans to 'out-source' cabin crew work. It has been in dispute with management concerning this issue since the beginning of the year.
2. Flight EI107 is not a new flight/product, but one which has been part of the schedule for years and was crewed exclusively by Aer Lingus cabin crew.
3. The Union is not prepared to allow Caledonian employees form part of the working crew. The CAA's requirement that Caledonian staff be on board during operators should not affect the Aer Lingus crewing arrangements.
4. In 1990 when Aer Lingus leased in an L-1011 the following was agreed:
Crewing
Eleven Aer Lingus staff with an American Trans Airline employee confined to deck duties only.
Compensation
81 Credits (credit =2.72) plus 1 week's leave
Rest
3 days rest following each Transatlantic duty.
5. The Union considers that the 1990 agreement should form the basis of resolving this dispute.
6. Prior to the Cahill Agreement, cabin crew working Transatlantic were not guaranteed their rostered days off and were therefore compensated by 3 days off following Transatlantic duty. As the EI107 operation reverts to the pre-Cahill Transatlantic position, the pre-Cahill condition of 3 days off should apply. Anything less would place a considerable physical strain on the workers concerned.
7. The Union reserves the right to pursue a claim for compensation when the full implications of the work methods involved on the L-1011 are known. The Company has acknowledged the Union's right to pursue such a claim and the Court is requested to endorse this position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The presence of 2 Caledonian Cabin Crew on board EI107 will not result in job losses.
2. Following rejection of Labour Court Recommendation 15118 and in preparation for crewing the Aer Lingus Summer schedule, the Company made 37 permanent appointments. Additional seasonal Cabin Crew were also recruited.
3. Aer Lingus responded to the Union's request to crew the L-1011 despite the fact that the Union did not agree to any flexibility to facilitate this crewing, which is for an 18 week period this Summer.
4. Meeting the Company's attempts to resolve this issue with demands for 10 Aer Lingus Cabin Crew, increased time off and financial compensation, raises serious questions about the Union's real commitment to making this operation a success.
5. Proof of the Company's commitment to use Aer Lingus Cabin Crew has been illustrated by commencement of training of our crew last weekend for the L-1011. This training is strictly without prejudice to the outcome of negotiations. However, given the time-scale involved and the commencement date of 4 June 1996, training must proceed if we are to have any hope of achieving Aer Lingus Cabin Crew on-board.
6. The implication of the Union's claim would add extra costs of £181,000. Such cost is unwarranted and unjustified and would leave Aer Lingus with no option but to go ahead and operate EI 107 as a complete 'hire-in', using Caledonian Cabin Crew. It also means seasonal recruitment would have to be suspended and some temporary crew would consequently be laid-off.
7. The Company cannot be constrained from pursuing its commercial mandate. Job security for Aer Lingus employees is inextricably linked to this objective. Unnecessary costs of this magnitude are clearly unsustainable.
8. The Company respectfully asks the Court to endorse the Company's position as the means by which the EI107 operation can be crewed using Aer Lingus Cabin Crew.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the detailed submissions made by the parties involved in this dispute. It has also noted the Union's response to a similar dispute dealt with in the Labour Relations Commission.
It is obvious that the requirement to have 2 Crew from Caledonian Airline on board the L1011 must be complied with. Whilst understanding the Union's fears as to long term employment in the Company, the Court nevertheless considers that to recommend in favour of the Union's position would place an excessive financial outlay on the Company, which in the short and long term would be to its detriment and that of the staff.
Therefore, and in this specific case, the Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's proposals as to crewing.
The issue of days off following Transatlantic duty appeared to the Court to be of legitimate concern to the Union. The Court also recognises that the Company requires a group dedicated to transatlantic flying on L-1011 and A330 aircrafts for the 18 week period of the Caledonian hire-in.
In recognition of the Company's requirement for flexibility in respect of "guaranteed" days off for this group and the Union's claim for 3 days off after transatlantic flights within the group, the Court recommends that transatlantic flights within this group be followed by 3 days off. This to apply for the 18 week period of the Caledonian hire-in for Summer 1996.
These days off will not be "guaranteed" days off. This arrangement will apply to this dedicated group only and will be without precedent or prejudice to the Cahill Plan Agreement on days off following transatlantic duties.
The Court notes the Union's views on the matter of compensation. This item was not properly before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
F.B./S.G.______________________
30th May, 1996Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.