FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 7, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of agreement pursuant to Section 7 of The Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
BACKGROUND:
2. Arising out of Labour Court Recommendation No 17821, the Company and the Union have applied to the Labour Court to give its decision as to the interpretation of the Seniority Agreement that exists between the Company and the Union with regard to training.
The issue was referred to the Labour Court pursuant to Section 7 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of April, 2004.
The following is the Court's decision:
DECISION:
Introduction
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to section 7 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. This section provides as follows:
- 7- The Court may, at any time, on the application of the parties to an agreement between an employer or a trade union of employers and a worker or a trade union of workers relating to the pay or conditions of employment of any person to whom the agreement relates give its decision as to the interpretation of the agreement or its application to a particular person.
The Court is asked to interpret an agreement on Pilot Seniority dated May, 1989, in so far as it relates to the direction of Pilots to a particular training course for a new type of aircraft which is shortly to enter service with the company.
The approach of the Court in this case is to ascertain the intentions of the parties to the agreement and, in so far as possible, to give effect to that intention. In so doing the Court has regard to the wording of the agreement and any collateral agreements which indicates how it should be applied. Whilst the clause of the agreement setting out its objective is clearly of considerable importance it cannot offset or supplant a clear provision of the agreement.
Furthermore, circumstances may change after an agreement is concluded which render its terms more or less advantageous to one side or the other than was originally anticipated. In such circumstances the parties may seek to renegotiate the agreement where this is provided for in the agreement itself, using normal industrial relations machinery if necessary, including the Court. In that regard it is noted that the agreement now under consideration provides, at Article 15.2, that either party may initiate the process of seeking its amendment. The agreement may not, however, be unilaterally given a meaning which was never intended for the purpose of dealing with particular difficulties which may arise.
Interpretation of the Agreement.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court decides as follows:
The agreement provides a single seniority list regardless of rank. Thus, if their seniority so dictates, Captains can be assigned to Co-Pilot posts.
Article 5.3.1 (b) provides that where it becomes necessary to direct Pilots to positions this must be done on inverse order of seniority. This obligation is not qualified in any way by the Article. This provision must, however, be read in conjunction with Article 5.3.1 (d) which envisages that circumstances may arise in which direction will be given out of seniority but there is no express provision as to what those circumstances are.
In the Court’s view, the combined effect of these provisions [5.3.1 (b) and (d)] should be interpreted as meaning that the primary or generally used method of filling vacancies by direction is by unqualified inverse seniority [5.3.1(b)]. It should nonetheless, be recognised that exceptional circumstances may arise in which a pilot can be directed out of seniority.
The parties concluded an agreement effective 1st November 2000 which set out the procedure to be followed where it is claimed that a departure from the strict terms of the seniority agreement can be justified in exceptional circumstances. That procedure was not followed in this case. Consequently, the Company cannot now rely on the claimed existence of exceptional circumstances to justify a departure from the clear and unambiguous terms of Article 5.3.1.
In light of the foregoing the Court is of the view that the Company is not authorised by the seniority agreement to direct the five disputed Pilots to participate in the training course at issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th April, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.