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 DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for retention of travel concession by those availing of Shannon Voluntary Severance Package
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute between the Company and Union is in relation to a Voluntary Severance Scheme and whether staff leaving under this scheme retain Travel concessions. The Company and the Union have been in negotiations over a restructuring plan for the Company for a long period of time. It was proposed by the Company that a reduction of staff by 200 was necessary. A ballot of members by the Union accepted this position. Following further negotiations and interviews with potential participants for the Scheme it emerged that agreeing to the terms would mean forfeiting travel concessions. The Union argue that it is established custom and practice for staff leaving on such a scheme that they would retain their travel concessions. The Company argues that it provides in the proposed agreement that the terms will supercede those in previous agreements where there is a conflict.
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 15th May, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1 The long standing custom and practice of travel concessions for voluntary retirements was formalised into an agreement in 2000 through discussion and agreement with the trade unions at the time. There was also voluntary retirements in 2002 and 2003 where members retained their travel concessions. On another occasion a number of individuals left the company but were advised directly by management before they accepted that in these particular circumstances the travel concession would not apply.
2 The management negotiating team never once mentioned the issue of travel concessions. It was never referred to in the LRC proposals document which was the subject of explanatory meetings prior to balloting. The issue over travel concessions only became known to staff after one to one interviews for the Voluntary Severance Scheme,
3 Had the Company raised the matter it could have been the subject of discussions which led to the proposals and members would have been in a position to make their decision on the Voluntary Severance Scheme on the outcome.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1 This was a once - off voluntary severance package which was negotiated in detail. The onus was on the Union to seek to include such matters as travel concessions.
2 Severance arrangements involve the end of the employment relationship including benefits in most cases. Unless expressly provided for it is reasonable to believe these benefits end. Travel concessions are limited to approximately 1500 staff and pensioners. Those leaving on severance if granted the travel concession will deprive staff and normal retirees of the benefit.
3 The proposal put forward by the LRC was comprehensive; it dealt with all elements which applied to severance. Staff travel was not included.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties on the entitlement of those employees who avail of the recently agreed Voluntary Severance Terms at Shannon Airport to retain concessionary travel arrangements.
It was accepted by both parties that the issue did not form any part of the protracted negotiations, which took place on the Voluntary Severance Terms.
The Union maintained that in view of the custom and practice, which prevailed on this issue, it was not unreasonable to expect that it would apply in this case.
Management stated that the continuation of travel concessions did not form part of the package and therefore it was reasonable to believe that these benefits do not apply.
The Court notes that Staff Travel Concessions are limited to 1500 persons including pensioners and a waiting list exists to gain the entitlement.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that as there was no common ground on the issue during the period of the negotiations; in the circumstances outlined, the Staff Travel Concessions should continue to apply to those employees currently entitled to the benefit who avail of the 21st March 2007 Voluntary Severance Terms agreed.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that in the event of discussions on future severance terms taking place, the issue of Staff Travel Concessions should clearly be addressed in the course of those negotiations.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th June 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.