FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 2% Local bargaining clause of Partnership 2000.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Aviation Authority was established in 1994. The functions of the Authority include the provision of safe and efficient civil aviation services in Ireland. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 300 Air Traffic Control Officers for the application of the 2% local bargaining clause of Partnership 2000.
Following negotiations both parties agreed increases in productivity resulting in changes within the Authority. A cost model was created showing the savings which would accrue from the implementation of these changes. The model showed a payroll saving of 10%.
The Company made an offer of 12% based on the payroll saving plus 2%. The Union rejected the offer seeking an increase of 27% based on the model saving plus a share of the savings in training.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of August, 2000, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Authority is in a healthy financial position at the moment.
2. The Authority's cost model lacks transparency and does not account for all items including the huge reduction in training costs.
3. The offer of 12% is not acceptable to the Union. An increase of 27% is sought based on the model saving plus a share in the savings in the training budget.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cost model was fully discussed, transparent, verified by auditors and was subject to any scrutiny.
2. Savings from training cannot be used in calculating the increase.
3. The Union's claim is unreasonable and cannot be conceded. To do so would lead to industrial relations problems within the Authority and throughout the public sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute and has evaluated the various costings relied on by each side in support of their respective positions.
On the basis of the figures provided and the methodology used in their computation, the Court is satisfied that additional payroll savings of 5%, beyond those identified by the Authority in its submission, are realisable from the proposed restructuring. This would be conditional on the Union's agreement to all of the items of change sought by the Authority and the increases applying to each point of the scale.
The Court recommends that the Authority offer a total increase of 15% to be financed from savings in payroll together with the 2% increase provided for by Partnership 2000. This increase should apply at each point of the scale. In return the Union should agree to the full implementation of all the measures sought by the Authority and referred to in its submission to the Court. The Court further recommends that the parties agree appropriate phasing arrangements which take account of the timeframe within which the savings will be realised.
Finally, the Court notes with concern the Authority's contention that the Union has engaged in industrial action, on matters relating to this dispute, contrary to their Continuity of Service Agreement. While this issue was not specifically referred to it for investigation, the Court considers it appropriate to point out that the Continuity Agreement clearly precludes any form of industrial action until the procedures set out in that agreement are exhausted. The Court would urge all parties to conduct their affairs strictly within the spirit and letter of this freely negotiated agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th September, 2000______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.