FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Call-in allowance and period of cover for which allowance applies.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case, the genesis of which dates back to 2009, was jointly referred to the Labour Court following the outcome of binding adjudication on a number of matters concerning the Station Manager Grade employed in the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA). The Union is seeking an increase in the amount of the allowance which assists in the delivery of the commitment to uninterrupted full-time duty cover. Management consider the claim to be both opportunistic and unwarranted in the current economic climate.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th May, 2012 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd May, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The Station Manager grade is not prepared to provide the guaranteed duty cover at the call-in allowance rate being offered at present by Management.
2. In order to expand the size of the pool available to cover duty rosters a number of Air Traffic Control Officers (ATCOs) are being trained up to cover Station Manager absences in exceptional circumstances. The Union points out that not all ATCOs have the required mix of ratings to enable them to effectively manage the operation in accordance with ESARR 5 as identified by IAA Safety and Regulatory Division.
2. A proper self cover arrangement for the grade of Station Manager is vital and the grade has shown its willingness to provide this cover in the past. Management must be prepared to offer a reasonable call-in allowance so that the system is not compromised in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management is currently in discussions with staff representatives with a view to achieving a reduction in the payroll by 2015. Concession of this claim would severely hinder that process.
2. The claim is cost-increasing with potential knock-on effects to some 370 staff who are also covered by similar call-in schemes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the level of on-call cover required of the claimants is excessive. The Union seeks to address this by issue by way of a pro rata adjustment to the compensation payment made by the Authority for the higher level of cover involved. The Court finds that such an approach fails to address the substantive issue and merely prolongs the impugned arrangements. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
The Court instead recommends that the parties engage with a view to enlarging the pool from which on-call cover is drawn. Such discussions should examine all possible options including the appointment of additional staff at this grade if necessary. However, the Court envisages that the resolution of this dispute will necessitate the inclusion of suitably trained ATCOs in the on-call pool.
Such discussions should be completed within twelve weeks of the date of this Recommendation. In the meantime all staff, whether engaged on operational duties or otherwise, should fully co-operate with whatever arrangements are necessary to ensure continuity of service while the recommended discussions take place.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st July, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.