FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Transfer of Cabin Crew from Shannon to Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's wish to transfer 25 Cabin Crew from Shannon to Dublin . (There was a base total of 249 staff in January, 2004). There was initially a need to transfer 45 staff but 18 opted for voluntary redundancy and two agreed to the move to Dublin. The Company's view is that it is part of the Cabin Crew's contract of the employment that staff can be transferred to suit the Company's needs. The relevant clauses (1 and 5) are as follows:
"The company reserves the right to post you to any station in Ireland or abroad and you must be prepared to work in such locations as required"
"You must be prepared to fly on all the Company's routes and aircraft, and serve at any station and in such appointments as may be designated by the Company."
The Union's main argument concerns the meaning of the word "posting" which it quotes from the collective agreement for the Cabin Crew known as" the Black Book":
" A temporary change of base in excess of 27 nights and when if longer than six months will be agreed in advance"
The Union made a number of counter proposals to the Company's proposal to reduce the number of Cabin Crew at Shannon, including rolling unpaid leave ( 2 months' duration ) and in-house leave but these were rejected by the Company. At a conciliation conference, the Company stated it was prepared to consider unpaid leave patterns of 5 month or 7 months, but the Union was not agreeable.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relation Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not need agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of April, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1)of the Industrial Relation's Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of June, 2004.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is involved in a highly competitive industry. Although it has continued to make progress to transform itself into a low-fares airline, its cost base is still totally out of line with its main competitor.
2. The Company has made every effort to resolve the dispute, including offering voluntary severance, redeployment, unpaid leave and various rostering permutations. However, there are still 25 cabin crew it needs to transfer and, as per the contract of employment/collective agreement, the Company has the right to move these staff members.
3 The Union's proposal regarding staff taking two months' unpaid leave would involve 150 members taking such leave. This would create a huge administrative problem.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has tried to forcibly transfer a number of Cabin Crew to Dublin without either individual on collective agreement.
2. The Black Book/contract of employment do not state that the Company has the right to transfer staff as it sees fit.
3. The Union suggested the reactivation of the unpaid leave agreement of the winters of 2002 and 2003 which involve the taking of unpaid leave ( temporary lay-off ) of one month or more by the Cabin Crew. The Union believes that the current surplus can be managed on an on-going basis by the implementation of the unpaid leave programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of both sides to this dispute. The Company seeks to permanently transfer a number of cabin crew staff from Shannon to Dublin and is of the opinion that such relocation is covered by the terms of the contract of employment and under the agreed principles of the collective agreement
The collective agreements relied upon specify the commitments given by cabin crew staff to recognise the necessity of change.
In support of its contention, at the hearing, the Company relied upon the clause in the contract of employment, which states:,
"You must be prepared to fly on all the Company's routes and aircraft, and serve at any station and in such appointments as may be designated by the Company"
Having examined both the collective agreements and the contracts of employment, the Court accepts that a facility exists whereby cabin crew may be posted to any location on a temporary basis. However, the Court is of the view that this clause does not give the Company the absolute right to transfer staff on a permanent basis against their will, from (in this case) Shannon to Dublin.
The Court is supported in this view by the fact that there have been no precedents to substantiate the interpretation taken by the Company.
The Court notes that the Union is anxious to work with the Company to achieve its objective of reduced cabin crew manning levels. A number of options have been put forward, and the Court recommends that the parties should meet to have further discussions on these options, which include:
(i) extension of the proposed Shannon Station Operatives Voluntary Severance Scheme to the cabin crew staff,
(ii) extension of the unpaid leave arrangements, discussions to include the putting in place of a structured basis for the taking of such leave, in line with that put forward by the Union at the hearing,
(iii) rostering arrangements which allow for the use of Shannon based cabin crew to be rostered for duty from other locations.
The Court recommends that these discussions should take place with immediate effect and should be completed not later than five weeks from the date of this recommendation. If there are any unresolved issues they may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th July, 2004______________________
CON/PM.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.