FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Follow Up To Lcr 18810, Claim For Increase Based On Productivity In Excess Of Normal On-Going Change
BACKGROUND:
2. In Labour Court Recommendation No.18810 involving a claim by the Union on behalf of Air Traffic Control Officers (ATCO's), it was the Courts view that further discussions were necessary between the parties concerning issues that arose at the hearing. The parties entered local discussions with some success. A number of issues were resolved but three remained outstanding. No agreement could be reached over the Northern Oceanic Transition Area (NOTA), the Service Delivery Strategy or Licensing.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24th August, 2007. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 There is an agreed headcount reduction of approximately 15%. This should equate to a 15% increase in pay . This reduction in staff will also mean a reduction in recruitment and training costs.
2 The airspace changes that have taken place are a radical change to the work of the ATCO's. The introduction of a single person ATCO sectors is probably the single most significant and radical change in the day-to-day work in ATC operations. It increases the physical and mental demands of an already demanding job and represents very real additional work and productivity
3 The introduction of NOTA has increased the area of Irish airspace by 27% and increased traffic by 30%. The increase in traffic has been handled without any increase in ATCO's.
4 Changes introduced by the European Union require each ATCO to be licensed by the State and undergo an annual revaluation check. The Union believes that the introduction of licensing presents an extra risk of loss of income to the post 1994 entry ATCO's. This should be acknowledged by an increase in contributions to the loss of licence fund to 3% for the employer and 1% for the employee.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Whilst there is agreement in relation to the qualification of ATCO reduction resulting from Single Person Operation (SPO) implementation, it must be emphasised that this is predicted on full Service Delivery Strategy implementation. It is not certain that SPO will be implemented as planned.
2 Any pay award in relation to Service Delivery Strategy must be seen in the context of this uncertainty in relation to SPO. Realistically, the outcome of SPO proposals will not be known until 2009/2010.
3 On the face of it NOTA traffic represents some 20% of Shannon Area Control Centre movements but this is misleading as some flights are double counted. When shorter sector lengths are also taken into account a truer workload picture emerges. When the duration of flights is considered NOTA accounted for 15.3% of Shannon Area Control Centre en route flight hours in 2006 when movements were 20.4%.
Whilst acknowledging these traffic figures the Authority maintains that this does not represent productivity and is the better utilisation of spare capacity.
4 Licensing is a legal requirement under Statutory Instrument No. 333/2000. Competency checking is a European legal requirement. The Authority contributes 1% to the loss of licence fund that provides scaled income protection for loss of licence due to medical or competence reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has noted the progression of these matters since the issue of LCR No. 18810. The Court is concerned at the size of the gap still remaining between the Company position and the Union expectations in regard to the question of potential reward for productivity.
Having considered the matter, the Court Recommends that a pay increase of 5% should apply to the claimants with effect from 1st January, 2006 to recognise the elements of change that have taken place under NOTA and SDS thus far. This should subsume the 2% allowance already granted and should provide for change until the end of 2008.
With regard to the full extent of productivity, change envisaged and issues occurring after 31/12/2008 and for the period covered by the parties submissions, the Court recommends that the parties should agree on a suitably qualified person to conduct an exercise to asses the value, if any, of change over this period under the agreed outstanding headings. Should the parties be unable to agree on such a person by 31st December, 2007, the matter may, but only as a last resort, be placed back in the hands of the Court, who will nominate such a person.
It is envisaged that the work of this person will be completed well before the end of 2008 and that all matters will be finalised before 31st December, 2008.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.