FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - SHANNON AIRPORT - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute re proposed programme for the commercial viability of Shannon Airport.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shannon Airport is part of the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) which replaced Aer Rianta under the State Airports Act of 2004. There is approximately 520 staff employed in Shannon across all grades.
The dispute before the Court concerns proposals put forward by the Dublin Airport Authority to deal with the very serious financial and commercial situation facing Shannon Airport. The Union is seeking that the Company engage in discussions in the context of the framework for talks on the future of Shannon Airport agreed between the ICTU, the Department of Transport and the DAA. One of the main objectives of the discussions is to secure high quality sustainable direct employment at Shannon.
Management’s approach was to offer an enhanced voluntary severance package allied to changes in work practices and the contracting out of what it regarded as non-core activities. The Union’s approach was that they would engage with Management on the basis of the maintenance of direct employment by the Company.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of several conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st January, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is prepared to engage in discussions with the Company based on maintaining agreed standards and terms and conditions of employment on a direct labour basis.
2. The Union requires detailed information on a section by section basis in order to be able to craft a direct labour change management solution to the problems posed by the Company.
3. The Union's position is reflective of it's concern to avoid a 'race to the bottom' generally and in particular with regard to the State Airports and Shannon.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management have put forward a set of proposals designed to put the Airport on a sound commercial basis. The proposals are based on outsourcing catering and other functions and are not a breach of the agreed framework.
2. The Union have refused to engage in discussions with Management because they involve outsourcing some further aspects of the airport's operations.
3. Activity levels have grown at the Airport and employment will continue to grow, though not through direct employment.
4. The Company is asking the Court to recommend that the Union ballot its members on its' proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties, particularly in the context of the statement made by the National Implementation Body on 19th December, 2005 in which the NIB called for:-
"full and meaningful engagement between the parties without delay in order to achieve the necessary improvement in operating costs. This should take place under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and in the event of failure to reach agreement the Body recommends the matter be jointly referred to the Labour Court."
At a conciliation conference held on the 20th December 2005 it was agreed that an intensive schedule of engagement, covering all aspects of the Company's operations at Shannon, should take place during January 2006, with the position to be reviewed on 26th January, 2006.
A number of things are apparent to the Court:-
a) The question of whether or not outsourcing should take place is not one for the Court to decide in the absence of agreement in principle between the parties.
b) The Court is not in a position to dictate to either party as to how its internal affairs should be conducted.
c) The Company has made a set of proposals, to which it has, at the hearing, added a lump sum payment for those remaining in employment.
d) the "full and meaningful engagement" recommended by the N.I.B. did not take place at conciliation, a fact which reflects no credit on the parties. Consequently the main criterion for referral of the issues to the Court has not been fulfilled properly.
The 'full and meaningful' engagement described above obligates the parties to fully engage on proposals on outsourcing and any other alternative means of operational cost saving or efficiency, designed to address the base cost issues of the Airports operation currently and into the future.
Noting also the letter of March 2006 from the Department of Transport which,inter alia,reminds the parties of the importance of maintaining momentum in negotiations (which has also not happened) the Court recommends that the parties immediately re-engage at conciliation, this time genuinely and meaningfully, with the object of resolving, as far as possible, the issues between them. This engagement should last no longer than two months, following which, if the parties so wish, unresolved industrial relations issues can be referred back to the Court for recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th April, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.