FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - AMICUS (AVIATION TECHNICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Staffing Levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Aviation Authority is a Semi State Company which is responsible for the safety and efficiency of civil aviation in Irish Controlled Airspace, the provision of HF voice communication on the North Atlantic, the provision of a Safety Regulatory service and a commercial and training service. The Authority's four main operational centres are at Shannon , Dublin Cork, and Ballygirreen. There are 632 staff of which 57 are Engineers who have responsibility for the inspection and maintenance of commissioned systems and project work associated with new systems. In September, 2000 the Authority and Union reached agreement on pay and conditions under Clause 2 (iii) of Partnership 2000. The restructuring arrangements covered a wide range of issues including the arrangements that provided for an Engineer staffing complement reduced from 82 to 65 as of 1st June, 2004. Since 1997 there have been three Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) schemes in the Authority. These combined with a number of internal promotions resulted in engineering staff levels falling below the agreed complement of 65. As an emergency measure six additional Engineers were recruited while the VER was ongoing . This has resulted in the Engineering Division being staffed by 57 engineers. The Union claims that the reduction has been carried out without consultation or agreement and that the Authority has refused to recruit sufficient numbers as to restore the staffing complement of Engineers to the agreed level of 65. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th May, 2005 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 13th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. An expert review commissioned by the Authority, dated January, 2005 recommended that the Authority maintain a minimum engineering staffing complement of 59 to ensure the effective delivery of future operations. The Union understood that discussions on any change on engineering numbers were to be based on this review. Only following the delivery of this report and the finalising of a collective agreement should the Authority have sought to reduce the engineering complement below 65. In advance of this report being delivered the Authority approved VER which would result in a decrease of engineering staff numbers to 57 without consultation or agreement.
2. Traditionally Air Navigation Service Work Programmes ( ANS ) were produced annually in order to efficiently allocate work across the Engineering Domains. Programmes were not produced or made available to the Union between 2001-2004. Following repeated requests Management eventually presented the Union with Work Programmes in July, 2004 which in the Union's opinion are fundamentally flawed. While no ANS Work Programme has been produced for 2005 it is obvious that the workload of the Engineering Division has grown significantly with more projects planned for the future.
3. The Authority should recognise commitments made to the Union in the Engineering Restructuring Document and recruit sufficient numbers to restore Engineering staffing levels to the agreed complement of 65.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Authority is not precluded from reducing Engineer staffing by virtue of the 2000 Agreement at 1st June, 2004 and 65 Engineers are not required to undertake the Engineer Work Programme. The Authority estimates that Engineer requirement will reduce from the current figure of 57 to 52 by 2008. A definitive position was not agreed in relation to absolute requirements after 2004. The Engineer staffing figure was to be determined on an ongoing basis by the ANS Work Programme. At the heart of the agreement was acceptance that more cost effective staffing arrangements could be introduced that would reduce shift coverage, concentrate staff on day duties and increase the utilisation of a Restoration Response Requirement. A fundamental tenet of the P 2000 discussions with the Union was the concept of "crewing to workload"
2. The Authority accepts that where a reduction in staffing is consequent on major change this would be the subject of collective bargaining negotiations. In this instance the reduction in staff results from a reduced ANS Work Programme and not the consequence of major change.
3. The Authority is prepared to enter discussions with the Union on all issues, including staff levels and where major change is identified and sought, such change will be the subject of collective bargaining.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the agreement which the parties concluded in 2001 under clause 2(iii) of Partnership 2000 is capable of at least two viable interpretations. It refers to a specific complement of 65 engineers at clause 10 but then goes on to provide in appendix A that this figure is merely indicative and contingent on the Authority's operational requirements. In the Court's view both parties must accept responsibility for the ensuing confusion.
Having regard to all the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties acknowledge that the agreement of 2001 provided that the complement of engineers be reduced to 65 by 1st June, 2004 and this target was met. The parties should then enter negotiations on a new agreement on staffing which reflects the operational requirements of the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd July, 2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.