FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR17541
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 19th October, 2003. The following is the Court's Recommendation:-
RECOMMENDATION:
In March 2003 the Court held a hearing to consider a number of claims by the Aer Lingus Unions including one for payment of the 4% under the PPF.
The Company had indicated its willingness to pay the 4% payment but had sought a range of changes in return. The Unions argued that the Company’s proposals should be taken in the context of changes already given in the Survival Plan and that the proposals were, by their extent and nature, over and above what would be classified as on going change.
The Court found the position taken by both sides to be unsatisfactory, indicating that the Unions should agree to change in return for the payment of 4%, but not to the extent of the changes proposed by the Company.
The Court recommended that the parties enter into immediate negotiations in order to reach an agreement and that any group that failed to reach agreement, could refer back to the Court.
Subsequently the Company and the Union entered discussions on the Company’s requirements for the delivery of a quick turnaround of aircraft, particularly on short haul routes. Agreement was not reached and the following issues were referred back to the Court.
1. Pay Bar on short haul flights.
2. Aircraft Tidy.
3. 100% Security Check by cabin crew.
4. Assistance of cabin crew on boarding and deplaning of passengers.
The Court issued its recommendation in relation to these matters in LCR 17541. The Union rejected the recommendation.
Following this rejection the Company and the Union entered into discussions to try to resolve the dispute.
It would appear that significant progress was made in these discussions and both sides are confident that they could have reached agreement on the issues in dispute. However, a major problem arose when Management indicated that the rosters would have to be adjusted, in order to achieve the quick turnaround.
The Union claimed that this had never been discussed or agreed and that they had understood that this proposal had been dropped. They argued that the effect of the changes involved were far in excess of what would be expected for the 4%.
Management were adamant that the quick turnaround was a key requirement for the Company in order to be competitive and that it had been discussed throughout the negotiations. They argued that it had been included in submissions presented to the Court by both sides and that it was an essential requirement for the Company. They further stated that the effects of any roster changes on the cabin crew would be minimal.
The discussions broke down at this point.
Subsequently the National Implementation Body met with both the Company and the Union on October 15th and issued the following statement: -
“The National Implementation Body met yesterday to consider the ongoing situation at Aer Lingus. The NIB met separately with representatives of the Company and IMPACT.
It noted that, despite the fact that the Labour Court had already made considerable efforts to resolve the dispute, there was a striking divergence between the parties on the facts of the case. The NIB believes that resolution of this dispute can only be achieved in the context of Paragraphs 7 and 12 of Annex 1, Framework 1, of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and in particular, the Court’s Recommendation No. 17462 and No. 17541.
Therefore, it is requesting the Court to revisit the case with a view to issuing a final recommendation, as a matter of urgency, as to the scale and extent of change appropriate to the payment in question.
It requests the parties to co-operate with the Court and, in the context of an immediate intervention by it, draws to the attention of the parties their obligations under the industrial peace and stabilisation provisions of the national pay agreement”.
As a result of the NIB intervention and in response to its request to revisit the case, with a view to issuing a final recommendation “as to the scale and extent of change appropriate to the payment in question”, the Court met with the parties. A full Court hearing was held on the 19th of October at which the Court received comprehensive written and oral submissions.
The cabin crew have emphasised that they have made considerable sacrifices over the years and that their co-operation has not been taken into account. The Court is very conscious of the contributions made by everyone in the Company, in turning the Company around. However, in this case the Court is dealing solely with the claim for the payment of the 4% under PPF.
While in the submissions made to the Court there were differences of emphasis, between the parties, on what was actually about to be agreed at the discussions held following the rejection of LCR17541, the Company and the Union were confident that the dispute could have been resolved.
The stumbling block was the necessity to alter the rosters, to achieve the quick turnaround time.
The Court is satisfied that the quick turnaround was a major item in the discussions, both in the Court and between the parties. It was referred to in several documents put before the Court by both parties.
The Court accepts, as it has in all its recommendations that the quick turnaround is essential to the competitiveness of the Company.
The Court is not in a position to make judgements on the Union claim that the Company withdrew the proposal on quick turnaround. The Court is of the view that there may have been less discussion, than there should have been, on the detail of this proposal.
In looking at the proposal for a quick turnaround the Court is hampered by the conflicting evidence presented by both parties as to the effect the proposed new rostering arrangements will have on cabin crew members.
The Company claims the effect will be negligible but the Union claims that the implications are profound and far-reaching.
Indeed the Court is hampered in trying to get a resolution to this dispute by the conflicting evidence presented on many issues by the parties, and by the antagonistic relationship that prevails.
Rosters:
The Court has considered the three concerns raised by the Union in relation to the changed rosters, loss of meal breaks, extra duties, and the loss of incremental credits.
The Company has indicated that “no cabin crew member will lose meal breaks that they currently have” and “that it will not be possible to give cabin crew extra duties because of their existing agreements”.
The Union have claimed that the introduction of the 25-minute turnaround would result in financial losses to the cabin crew. They contend that these losses would result from the discontinuation of payments, which are currently made to cabin crew who, in certain specific circumstances would agree on a voluntary basis to turnaround of aircraft at faster times than provided for on the roster. The Company stated that only €17,000 was paid last year under this heading.
The Union contends that these payments would be considerably more if they had been claimed and paid every time a member volunteered to do a quicker turnaround.
Turnaround:
Given the present competitive standards in the airline business, there is a requirement on the Company, to move to a quick turnaround. The Court clearly recognises this fact but must also be conscious of the position articulated by the Union, that it has major implications for the cabin crew. The effect of the quick turnaround will be a feature of the Company’s operational requirements going forward and has implications for the staff.
Given the conflicting evidence which was presented by both sides the Court is not in a position to make a judgement on the effects the roster changes will have on the cabin crew conditions. The Court believes that a period during which the cabin crew would co-operate fully with the quick turnaround, is necessary, so that a full assessment can be made of the effects.
Recommendation:
Having given very careful consideration to all the arguments which were made by both sides the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis:
1. The Court is aware that since the issuing of LCR17541 detailed discussions took place between the parties in an effort to reach agreement on the issues of cabin tidying, deplaning and the pay bar.
- It is the Court’s understanding that substantial progress was made and the parties were close to agreement. Both sides should continue with these discussions immediately with a view to finalising agreement on these issues.
2. The Company should commence rostering cabin crew for quick turnaround and cabin crew should co-operate. Over a three-month period there should be careful monitoring of all the effects of quick turnaround on cabin crew conditions (the method of monitoring to be agreed between the parties).
3. After the three-month period the parties should report back to the Court at which time the Court will ascertain the scale and extent of the changes and their appropriateness to the 4% payment.4. During the monitoring period the Company should commit to maintaining the amount of the payments previously made for incremental credits (€17,000 p.a).5. Subject to acceptance of the above recommendations the Company to pay the cabin crew the 4% under the PPF from the 1st of March 2003 and the 3%
under SP from the 1st July 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th October, 2003______________________
LW/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.