FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS SHANNON - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Portering at Shannon Airport.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of workers employed in the loading area for the retention of a portering service at Shannon Airport which has been in existence for over fifty years.
The Company wants to discontinue this service. The Company is no longer the sole airline operating out of the Airport.
The Union states the service should be retained as it is now "Custom and Practice" in the operative area.
In 1998, a facilitator was engaged to resolve the issue but his findings were rejected by both sides. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 1st of March, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of February, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The provision of this service is of benefit to the Company as it increases the level of customer service over its competitors.
2. This service offers a break to the ramp operatives from the monotonous, physically demanding, outdoor work which they perform.
3. Porterage has been a core function in the operative area for many years. Workers have provided a good service which should be retained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is no longer the sole airline using the airport. It is in fact providing a portering service for its competitors at a high cost.
2. Having uniformed staff touting for business destroys the image of the Company.
3. The provision of this service is unique to Shannon. The Company cannot continue with this service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to both sides of this dispute. There clearly is a need for the Company to eliminate the "porterage" duties as these duties no longer form part of the airline's function, but rightly belong to the Airport Authority. This need has been signalled since 1991, when discussion and negotiations on the issue commenced. However, the Court notes the Union's total opposition to this plan.
It was agreed by both sides in 1998 to involve the services of an independent facilitator to resolve the impasse. While, both sides have rejected the findings of the facilitator's report, the Court is of the view that the recommendations should form the basis for a settlement of this dispute. Therefore, the Court recommends that the total commpensation amount recommended by that report should be increased to £3000 (3809.21Euros) and that the practice of "porterage", including the collection of strollers, should cease as soon as possible.
The Court recommends that both sides should accept these amended proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd May, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.