FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEDCASTLE AVIATION FUELS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Shift Patterns.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the re-fuelling of aircraft at Shannon Airport. This dispute concerns changes, introduced by the Company in 2005, to shift patterns to allow for greater handover between shift changes. It had been the practice that employees were allowed leave prior to shift change if circumstances permitted.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The Company put forward a number of possible options at conciliation but, as agreement was not reached at conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20th September 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th January 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company introduced these changes to shift patterns without consultation or agreement.
2. These changes have been operated 'under protest' by the workers.
3.As the recent cancellation by Aer Lingus of its scheduled Shannon-Heathrow flights means that a refuelling scheduled for the change over time is no longer required, the Company should revert to the old shift patterns.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a complex and competitive market.
2. These changes were introduced to preserve the business, maintain the highest health and safety standards, and to meet the requirements of customers.
3.There was consultation and agreement with staff prior to the introduction of these changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is cognisant of the many complexities in the ongoing consultations between the Company and the Union. Acceptance of change, and procedures for agreements to change are a responsibility to be shared by both sides. Both parties to this dispute need to focus on appropriate communications to enable reasonable resolution to change issues, as they might arise in the future.
The Court considers that either proposal 1 or 2 made by the Company at conciliation should be accepted as representing normal ongoing change within the meaning of Towards 2016 and as being a fair solution to the problems as outlined.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th February, 2008.______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.