FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IAA - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Non Co-Operation With Normal Ongoing Change.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns whether the Irish Aviation Authority's introduction of four projects - concerning the operation of air traffic control in the State - constitutes normal on-going changes within the parameters of Paragraph 1.9(iv) of 'Towards 2016'.
This dispute was the subject of a Conciliation Conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission but, as no progress could be made, on 18th January 2010, both parties requested that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court for a full hearing. In accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th January, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes proposed by the Authority - which will result in significant savings for the airlines - require the air traffic controllers to take on new duties and responsibilities.
2. These new duties and responsibilities are a fundamental change to theair traffic controllers' work practices.
3.It is a legitimate aspiration for the air traffic controllers to be rewarded for changes in excess of normal ongoing change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Authority is introducing these four projects in order to meet its customers' needs and maintain the highest standards of safety.
2. Continuing investment in, and rolling-out of new technology is a feature of the industry worldwide.
3.The proposed changes are well within the parameters of Paragraph 1.9(iv) of 'Towards 2016'.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this case the Court is asked to determine if the introduction of four projects by the Authority constitute normal on-going change or significant change. Normally such questions arise in considering the obligations of workers to cooperate with normal on-going change in consideration for increases in pay increases under the pay terms of National Partnership Agreements. However in this case the question arose in the context of whether prior agreement is required to the introduction of the changes contemplated.
The Court has considered the detail of what is involved in each of the projects in issue. In each case the changes anticipated arise from the evolution of technology or the adaptation of systems so as to improve efficiency. It would seem to the Court that in each case the real benefit of the changes will accrue to the users of the service provided rather than to the Authority itself.
As the Court has held on a number of occasions in the past normal on-going change should be understood as referring to situations in which new systems or methods are deployed to provide what remains essentially the same service under the same or similar conditions. It should be understood in contradistinction to significant change, which occurs where workers are required to provide a substantially different service or to provide the same service under substantially different conditions. The application of this general principle must, however, take account of the type of industry or sector involved and the extent to which change is an inherent and necessary feature of the industry or sector.
The Court has applied these general principles to the facts of the present case. It is self-evident that air traffic control services are delivered through advanced and sophisticated technologies and the Authority must be in a position to avail of new systems as they become available so as to keep abreast of developments internationally and at European level. It is also clear that none of the changes proposed will impact detrimentally on the terms and conditions of employment of the staff affected. Nor is there any evidence that the changes will lead to either cost savings to the authority or increases in its revenue.
Having regard to these and all other relevant considerations the Court has come to the conclusion that the changes associated with the disputed projects does not go beyond the parameters of what can properly be classified as normal on- going change.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th January, 2010______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.