FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Right of SIPTU to represent its members.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and management at Aer Rianta International (ARI) concerning the rights of employees to be represented on a collective basis by the Trade Union of their choice. The Union is claiming that an agreement exists between SIPTU and Dublin Airport Authority, of which Aer Rianta International is a subsidiary, in relation to the negotiation rights of the Union to represent its members.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that it provides excellent terms and conditions to its employees, and collective negotiation may result in less flexibility than currently exists within the organisation.
On the 4th March, 2005, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in
accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place on the 7th September, 2005.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union currently has 50% of the appropriate grades as members with legitimate concerns, which can only be addressed by collective bargaining within the organisation.
2. The Dublin Airport Authority has an agreement with SIPTU in relation to the
representation of its workers. It is unacceptable that a subsidiary of this
Company refuses to allow representation, by the Union, of its workers.
3. The representation of the workforce will have no effect on the day to day
running of the Company nor will it have an adverse effect on the flexibility
needed within the Company to operate its business.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a highly competitive market. To this end, it is
imperative that the current levels of flexibility remain among the employees to ensure viability.
2. The Company provides excellent terms and conditions to its employees and
reviews its remuneration package annually to take account of the efforts of
the workforce.
3. Due to the nature of the business, exchanges to posts outside the country occur
frequently. Collective bargaining in that situation would be unsuitable on the
basis that restrictions would be placed on the workforce in certain
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court is a claim by the Union, on behalf of its members in the Company's Irish operation based at Shannon for the right to represent its members.
The Court, having considered the submission of both parties recommends that the Company should accept the Union's right to represent, collectively and individually, those employees in its membership. The Court recommends that the parties should put in place a procedural framework in which they would engage with each other, taking account of the Company's imperative to be able to immediately respond and adapt to the requirements and flexibilities of its particular business.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th September, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.