FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER RIANTA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Terms of redundancy scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is primarily responsible for operating Dublin, Shannon, and Cork Airports and it employs 2,500 staff. Historically, the Company and Aer Lingus were a single entity but they separated in 1971. However, Company staff continued to have travel concessions.
In December, 2001, the Company offered voluntary redundancy terms which applied to middle management and clerical staff. The Unions were unhappy with the approach, believing that they had not been consulted in regard to the terms. Their claim is that the offer does not honour the terms of previous collective agreements on 2 counts:
(1) The Company has not applied the same method of calculating the lump-sum severance payment to part-time staff as applied to other part-time staff in the retail section.
(2) The failure of the Company to honour the terms of an agreement on staff travel, specifically, refusing to restore travel concession to workers who retire between the ages of 46 - 49 when they become entitled to the concession at age 55. The current offer only applies to workers who retire between he ages of 50 - 54.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of January, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of April 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The lump-sum on offer to the part-time workers concerned is not the same as that offered to other categories of staff, despite assurances given by management. The severance scheme as applied to commercial/sales staff allowed job-sharers to have their lump-sum payment calculation based on full weekly wage/salary. This would result in commercial/sales staff receiving twice the lump sum as middle management/clerical staff with identical service.
2. The cost to the Company would not be great as there are only a small number of workers involved.
3. Since 1972, members in Aer Rianta have enjoyed the same staff travel conditions on Aer Lingus services as those available to their colleagues in the national airline. Aer Lingus provides that workers aged 46 to 54 who sever their employment will have staff travel restored to them as pensioners i.e. at age 55. Whilst eventually conceding this to workers aged 50 to 54, Aer Rianta continues to deny the same terms to workers aged 46 to 49.
4. The Company accepted at the LRC that there would be no cost involved in honouring this long-standing agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Increasingly over the past 5 years, the Company has had to respond to significant changes in the airline business, including the closure of duty free and the crisis caused by September 11th.
2. The terms on offer in December, 2001, were generally the same as those offered to other areas within the Company. They were part of a voluntary severance scheme. All staff were told of their entitlements, and accepted in writing the conditions. Anyone unhappy with the offer did not apply or has not left.
3. The compensation for those who left was generous and included compensation for the loss or delay to them receiving concession travel.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the position of both sides. The Court recommends the following in full and final settlement of the claims submitted by the Unions :-
- Concessions of the Unions' claim for travel concession for those who retire when aged between 46 and 49 to regain their entitlement once they become entitled to a deferred pension. This is without prejudice to any further negotiations on this issue.
- The Court notes the December, 2001, arrangement in the case of job sharers or staff working reduced hours whereby the ex-gratia lump sum is based on the relevant full time equivalent salary, and their service is calculated pro-rata to full time service. The claim before the Court stems from the redundancy package that applied in the case of retail staff. The Court is of the view that the package, which applied to the retail staff, was a one off which was an exception to the norm. The Court recommends that in order to recognise the true reality of their employment situation, and to provide for a fair and equitable ex-gratia arrangement when compared to full time staff covered by the package, these staff should have each year counting as a full year and their salary should be based on their normal salary at date of redundancy.
- The Court notes the Unions' concerns regarding the way the Company launched the redundancy plan. This was done without consultation with the Unions concerned. The Court is of the view that this is not in accordance with the spirit of partnership and recommends that in future there should be full consultation concerning the details of any future redundancy package, bearing in mind the circumstances applying at the time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th May, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.