FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED - AND - UNITE/SIPTU/ TEEU (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Company proposals on 1. "+/-" Hours, and 2. Shift Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues before the Court concern the Company's proposals for a +/- working hours flexibility system and the appropriate rate of pay for shift working. The system of overtime proposed would require workers to carry a maximum rolling balance of +56 hours to -117. The purpose of this is to allow the Company to send workers home on full pay during quiet periods in the production cycle. At Conciliation the Company made a final offer of a shift rate payment of 10% and is limiting any shift working to Monday to Friday. The Unions' opposed these measures. It is the Unions position that the +/- working hours flexibility system is unprecedented in Irish industrial relations. It is also their position that the agreed shift rate as per the collective agreement between the parties is 20%.
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 9th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th April, 2009.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The +/- working hours flexibility system is unprecedented and is not considered acceptable by the Unions in its current form. The Unions have suggested an alternative system of annualised hours that would yield the same result that management are seeking.
2 The shift rate pay is 20% as per the collective agreement between the parties. However, if the Company needed assistance to secure a particular contract for a specified period of time the Unions would consider putting a potential reduction to their members.
3 Management made it clear they were not willing to engage with the Unions issues as part of the negotiating process. The Unions were always prepared to negotiate once there were no preconditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The proposals put forward by management are designed to serve the future development of the facility in an internationally competitive industry and to weather the current recession.
2 The proposed flexible hours scheme allows employees time at home on full pay when work levels are reduced and will enable the Company to deal with variable engine inputs. The employees would be expected to use their overtime hours in busy periods to off-set them against the time at home during slack periods.
3 Shift working in the aviation industry is considered the norm. Due to the competitive nature of the business an appropriate shift rate is essential. A 20% shift rate would be uneconomic and would place the Company at a severe economic and competitive disadvantage.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the oral and written presentations made to it by the parties.
In forming its Recommendation the Court must be cognisant both of the Company’s need for cost containment and predictability leading to increased competitiveness and of the effects of changes in work practices and conditions on the workers in the enterprise. The overall imperative is to ensure that the contract for the new V2500 engine is secured thus ensuring the continued viability of the Company and the retention of 465 jobs in Rathcoole. In this context, the Court also notes the marked slowdown in available work going forward and the associated phasing out of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D jet engine, a long-time provider of work for LTAI.
Given all of the above and in the present economic conditions, keenly felt in the world of civil aviation, the Court recommends as follows:
“Lean”: -The Court notes that the Union Group is committed to the concept of “Lean”. The parties, having accordingly adopted the “Lean” model in principle, should engage in the necessary implementation arrangements in order to activate “Lean” working from the earliest possible date.
Company /EWC Issues: -On acceptance of this Recommendation and the securing of the V2500 engine contract, the parties should continue discussions on the items on both parties’ agendas which have not been dealt with up to this point. These matters, if unresolved locally, can be processed through the standard industrial relations procedures as provided for in local agreements.
Plus/Minus Hours / Annualised Hours: -The proposal put by the Company on 6th April 2009 at Conciliation, with all the safeguards explained then and later, should be accepted, with a reduction from –234 hours (-6 weeks) to –195 hours (-5 weeks) in the annual limit per individual for being at home on full pay under the scheme.
The figures of +56 to –117 as flexible hours rolling limitations should be adopted as should the offer of an individual review once a worker has reached a –78 hours position.
Contemporaneously, the parties should set up a sub-committee on annualised hours which should examine the feasibility of the ultimate adoption of an annualised hours system.
The position of the “plus/minus” hours’ system, the innovative nature of which is recognised by the Company, should be jointly reviewed, along with progress on any proposed system of annualised hours, no later than May 2010.
Shift Rates: -The Court notes the fact that the rate for two-shift working is set at 20% in the Company/Union Agreement. The Court also notes the Company’s last offer on this of a rate of 10% and the Union’s agreement to reduce the rate on an interim basis.
The Court is reluctant to recommend deviation from a Company/Union Agreement but, in the unique circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the rate be set at 12.5% with effect from the start of shift working, which the Company has said will not be before 1st January 2010 and which will be limited to the Monday to Friday period.
The Court notes the Company’s commitment to review the shift working system six months after such introduction. The Court is also aware of the Union’s aspiration to ultimately restore the rate as set out in the Company/Union Agreement.
The Court strongly commends this Recommendation to the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
17th April, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.