FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION THE ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS FEDERATED UNION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AIR TRANSPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Proposed deferral of final phase (4%) and 1% lump sum due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) was incorporated as a semi-State Company in January, 1994. The IAA is responsible for the safety and efficiency of civil aviation in Irish controlled airspace, the provision of air navigation services, the provision of aviation safety/regulation and a commercial and training service
There are 685 staff employed in the Authority represented by a number of different Unions, with IMPACT, as the largest Union, representing the employees on behalf of the IAA staff panel.
The case concerns the proposed deferral of the final phase (4%) and 1% lump sum due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of April, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of June, 2002.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions asked to examine the Authority’s accounts. This request was refused, leading to the conclusion that an inability to pay situation does not exist.
2. Recovery from the events of September 11th, 2001, has been stronger than expected.
3. Economic regulation staff in the industry have been awarded the pay increase. Safety regulation staff should not be denied.
4. All elements of a cost cutting package proposed by the Authority and agreed have been implemented. The disagreed items are part of the PPF agreement and are those now before the Court.
5. The Authority’s proposals on pay are in breach of a National Agreement.
AUTHORITY’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The aviation industry is suffering large losses as a result of global economic slowdown and the terrorist attacks in the United States on the 11th of September, 2001.
2. Salary increases at this time will seriously undermine customer confidence. The Authority must be in a position to provide cost effective air navigation services.
3. The Authority cannot afford to pay the PPF because of the uncertainty surrounding 2002 traffic, the extent of the under-recovery of its costs and the likely borrowing position during the remainder of 2002.
4. The Authority has always adhered to all terms of National Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Authority claims that due to a global economic slowdown and the events of September 11th, the aviation industry is suffering large losses and that this constitutes grounds for the deferral of payment of the third phase of the PPF and the 1% lump sum from 1st April, 2002 to 1st April, 2003.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both sides, the Court notes that the industry indicators are not of a growing problem but rather that the position is likely to improve.
Considering the level of co-operation given by the staff to the Authority's initiatives to reduce their cost base and in the interest of goodwill between the parties, the Court recommends that the Authority should pay the third phase (4%) of the PPF retrospective to its due date of 1st April, 2002. The Court further recommends that the 1% lump sum should be paid on 1st December, 2002.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th June, 2002______________________
CH/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.