FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AVIANCE IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non payment on foot of industrial action.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the provision of Airport ground handling services and employs approximately 230 staff at Dublin Airport. On the 24th September, 2005 an official work stoppage took place in the Ramp Section involving 20 workers. The shifts in operation at the time were as follows:
04.00-13.00
06.00-14.30
08.00-16.00
The Union states that the stoppage was for one hour from 11.15 -12.15 and that it was notified in advance to the Company. The Union claims that the Company made unauthorised deductions from the claimants' pay outside the official period of the industrial action. The Company made a decision not to allow the claimants to return to work and suspended them from duty. The suspensions were lifted following intervention by the Labour Relations Commission and normal working resumed at 16.10. The Company, however, rejected the Union's claim for reimbursement of deductions made on the basis that the workers were engaged in industrial action and had no entitlement to payment for the hours lost on that date.. 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 25th November, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Notice of official industrial action had been served on the Company on the 5th September, 2005. This was done because of workers' frustration with the Company and its refusal to engage with the Union in meaningful discussions on issues of concern to workers. On a previous occasion when an official work stoppage took place (20th September, 2005) just one hour's pay was deducted. Following the cessation of the one hour's industrial action on the 24th September the claimants immediately presented themselves for work yet the Company refused to allocate work to them. The Company's action in not allowing the claimants return to work was underhanded and unfair.
2. Deductions for periods ranging from 1 hour 45 minutes to 4 hours 55 minutes were made by the Company. The amounts deducted, which can be identified from payroll, should be reimbursed to the claimants immediately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was only informed of the work stoppage after the action was taken. The workers refused to go back to work when required to do so and the Company took the decision to suspend them. While the one hour stoppage on the 21st September caused disruption it did not seriously affect business. However, the actions of the claimants on the 24th September, severely compromised the Company's operations in Dublin Airport. Three fully loaded planes were left on the ground. Customer Airlines were delayed. As a result of the Union's action customer airlines have a perception of a volatile industrial relations environment.
2. This is a critical time for the Company in Dublin. The station is currently running at a loss and this is not sustainable in the long term. The station is currently under review and restructures are being put into place to enable it to remain viable.
3. The Union's decision to ballot for industrial action prior to third party intervention was a breach of normal industrial relations procedures. The parties have now concluded a framework agreement which facilitates meaningful consultation between the parties and addresses the joint consultation process, dispute and grievance procedure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the period between 1.15 p.m. and 4.10 p.m. on Saturday 24th September, 2005 was a period of industrial action and the Company's actions in deducting pay during that period was appropriate in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th March, 2006______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.