FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Iceland Project / normal ongoing change - T16.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) was incorporated as a semi-State Company on 1st January, 1994 under the Irish Aviation Act,1993. The Authority's four main operational centres are at Shannon, Dublin and Cork airports and at Ballygirreen.
In February, 2004 the IAA and the Iceland Civil Aviation Administration signed a Memorandum of Understanding on long-term cooperation on the future of voice communications in the North Atlantic region.(The Iceland Project).
The case before the Court concerns whether the"full implementation of the Iceland Project"also known as "Joint Operations"constitutes"normal ongoing change"in the context of the Towards 2016 National Agreement.
The Aviation and Marine Officers Branch of IMPACT (AMROB) which represents 57 Radio Officers based at Ballygirreen, Co Clare is putting forward the view that the Iceland Project constitutes change above and beyond normal ongoing change and should be the subject of local discussions between the parties with a view to concluding a pay/productivity agreement.
The Authority in their submission state that the Icelandic initiative does not involve fundamental changes in the way Radio Officers perform their individual duties. The Icelandic initiative simply institutionalises, on a structured and coordinated basis, the provision of service in the primary area of an adjacent provider rather than the reactionary arrangement previously in place. The Authority also states that the normal ongoing changes which they are putting in place will enhance job security and maintain employment thus meeting the aspirations of the National Agreements.
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 the 26th April, 2007, having regard to Paragraph 1.10(iv) of Sustaining Progress and in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with the parties accepting the outcome. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2007.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Icelandic initiative does not involve fundamental changes in the way Radio Officers perform their individual duties but will have a more positive impact in more evenly distributing workload.
2. As previously stated the normal ongoing changes which the Authority is putting in place will enhance job security and maintain employment thus meeting the aspirations of the National Agreements.
3.Management maintains that the subject of this submission constitutes normal ongoing change and is appropriately compensated through application of the pay increases under Clause 2(iii) of Partnership 2000 and through application of the pay increases as set out in the National Agreement Towards 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union maintains that since 2001 the service has expanded rather than declined as was expected and that this expansion has been achieved despite a reduction in staff and that this has led to an increased workload..
2. The Union also maintains that the Iceland project further increases staff workload and complexity and that this combined with the introduction of licensing constitutes change in excess of "normal ongoing change."
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the introduction of the Iceland Project does not, in itself, go beyond normal on-going change, as that concept is generally understood. It does, however, constitute some elements of additional work which must to be undertaken by a reduced workforce.
In the Court’s view if this additional work is to be undertaken without additional resources, either in staff numbers or additional overtime, some savings must accrue to the Company. If that were the case it would not be unreasonable for the staff to aspire to a share in those savings.
The Court recommends that the project should proceed but that the parties should have further negotiations aimed at identifying any additional productivity which the work generates and an appropriated sharing mechanism of the benefits of that productivity with the staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th December, 2007______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.