FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(5); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Various Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute came before the Court for investigation pursuant to section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Union had given notice of its intention to engage in strike action on 16thand 18thJune 2014 in furtherance of the dispute. On Monday 9thJune 2014, having regard to the public interest implications of that action proceeding, the Court invited the parties to participate in a full Court investigation of the issues in dispute. That invitation was accepted by both parties and the Court conducted its investigation on Wednesday 11thJune 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court received comprehensive and helpful submissions from both parties. The Court also had the benefit of meeting with the parties separately in side sessions and received further elaboration of their respective positions on the issues involved in the dispute.
At the conclusion of the Court’s investigation the Union confirmed that in light of progress made the industrial action referred to would not proceed.
The issues in dispute come under four general headings: -
- •The Union’s claim for the introduction of new rostering arrangements for cabin crew engaged in short haul operations•A claim for additional time off post transatlantic duties•Issues surrounding the interpretation and continuance of certain collective agreements•Matters arising from a previous Labour Court Recommendation
The recommendations that follow will address in turn each of the issues in dispute. However, before doing so the Court wishes to make some general recommendations directed at assisting the parties in bringing about a general improvement in the conduct of industrial relations within the Airline so as to minimise the possibility of similar disputes arising in the future.
The Court recommends that the parties carry out an urgent review of current industrial relations practices and procedures including procedures for resolving disputes. In that review the parties should agree to the establishment of an internal forum through which issues in dispute can be resolved as close as possible to the point at which they arise. The Court will remain available to provide the parties with further assistance in giving effect to this recommendation.
The Court recommends as follows in relation to the each of the Union’s claims:
- 1.General
The final resolution of the issues giving rise to this dispute will involve a further process of engagement between the parties. This Recommendation is intended to put in place arrangements within which constructive engagement can take place on each of the issues in dispute. Accordingly, this Recommendation should be regarded as interim in nature. The Court intends to monitor progress in achieving final agreement between the parties on each of the issues covered by this Recommendation. To that end, the Court will meet periodically with representatives of the parties during the continuance of the processes recommended. In that context, the Court will continue to be available to issue any supplemental recommendations that may be necessary to assist the parties in their deliberations.
The Court proposes that the parties should initially make a progress report to it three weeks after the date on which this recommendation is accepted and at such further intervals as may be necessary.
2.Recruitment of Additional Staff
In order to facilitate new rostering arrangements provided for by this Recommendation (including the provision of additional time off for certain categories of Cabin Crew recommended below) the Company should immediately put in place arrangements to recruit an additional 20 full-time-equivalent Cabin Crew members.
3.Rostering Arrangements for Short Haul Operations
The Court Recommends that the parties establish a technical group, consisting of not more than six representatives on each side, to consider the technical and operational changes that should be made for the purpose of designing and implementing a fixed 5 / 3 roster for cabin crew engaged in short haul flights.
These arrangements should be consistent with the requirement to deliver the high level of productivity, set by the Greenfield Agreement, without affecting the Airline’s cost base in all aspects of its operations. The parties should then proceed to agree an appropriate trial of a new fixed 5/3 roster for the cabin crew concerned.
Any disagreement that emerges in this process should be dealt with in accordance with 1 above.
4.Time off Post Transatlantic Duties
The Court recommends that with effect from the first roster period following acceptance of this Recommendation that a third day off post duty be provided to Cabin Crew assigned to the San Francisco destination. This should be accepted in full settlement of the Union’s claim in respect of time off for this category of staff.
In the course of the Court’s investigation the Unions claimed that having regard to the work requirements of staff on transatlantic duties, including health and safety considerations, a 2/3/2/3 roster pattern should be introduced. They also claim that Cabin Crew members assigned to the Shannon – Dublin – Toronto destination should also be provided with additional time off post duty.
The Court recommends that these aspects of the Union’s claim be the subject of negotiations between the parties which should commence as soon as practicable after the date of acceptance of this recommendation and should not extend beyond three months. Should the parties fail to reach agreement the matter may be referred back to the Court through the process recommended at 1 above.
5.Collective Agreements
This matter should be the subject of further discussion between the parties for the purpose of identifying the extent of disagreement on the interpretation or continued application of collective agreements. If final agreement is not reached outstanding issues of interpretation should be referred to the Court in accordance with Section 7 of the Industrial relations Act 1969, which allows the Court to provide a definitive interpretation of a collective agreement.
6.Labour Court Recommendation LCR20664
The Court recommends that the parties continue their engagement with a view to agreeing a basis upon which this recommendation can be implemented7.Travel Concessions
On acceptance of this recommendation travel concessions withdrawn from Cabin Crew who participated in earlier industrial action should be restored.
8.Maintenance of Industrial Peace
Both parties should commit to reaching final agreement on the matters covered by this Recommendation through negotiation and where necessary through final adjudication in accordance with 1 above. In particular the parties should refrain from any form of industrial action or interference with normal working in relation to these matters.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th June, 2014______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.