FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Breach of Company / Union Agreement 2003.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the Employer's alleged breach of the terms of a Company/Union Agreement concluded in 2003 regarding annual leave and public holiday provisions. It is the Union's claim that a number of recently recruited Airport Police and Fire Service (APFS) employees are not receiving the terms and conditions of employment as provided for in the 2003 Agreement. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that terms and conditions of employment were altered as part of the Company's Cost Recovery Plan which was agreed by all parties. 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 7th March, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th April, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has unilaterally altered the terms of the Company/Union Agreement without prior agreement with the Union.
2. The Union contends that the Employer's Cost Recovery Plan does not replace or allow for alteration of the terms of the 2003 Company/Union agreement surrounding service based annual leave and public holidays.
3. The Union maintains that it is only fair that all APFS employees are entitled to the terms and conditions of employment as set down in the 2003 Agreement which remains in existence at present.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that both the Employer and the Union are in agreement that the 2003 Agreement has been amended by the Cost Recovery Plan.
2. The Employer contends that in line with the Cost Recovery Plan, newly recruited staff are not entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment that were previously agreed in 2003.
3. The Employer is of the view that it has acted in accordance with the terms of all agreements at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the extensive submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows: -
1. In the 2009 Cost Recovery Plan Agreement the Union agreed that “new entrants terms and conditions of employment would need to change to provide sustainable employment into the future”. Both sides committed to “finding a mechanism to achieve this”. However the Company did not engage directly with this category of staff with a view to finding such a mechanism in this case.2. The Court notes that this category of staff in 2003 concluded an agreement with the Company that was registered with the Labour Court in accordance with section 30 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946. Such a registration imposes significant obligations on both sides. Though the Supreme Court has struck down those sections of the Act the importance of honouring those obligations lies heavily on both sides. Accordingly the Company and Union must comply with the provisions of the agreement where either sides wishes to give effect to any matter that comes within its scope. In this case the Company has operated outside of the provisions of the Agreement and accordingly any changes to the terms and conditions of this category of staff that have been so altered are inconsistent with it and must be reversed.
3. However the Union must equally comply with the terms of the 2009 and 2003 Agreements and engage with the Company with a view to “finding a mechanism” to reach agreement and introduce appropriately changed terms and conditions of employment for new entrants into the APFS services.
4. The Court further notes that this service has a complex pay determination mechanism that is different to that which applies to all other categories of staff. Both sides are committed to taking account of developments across the company and in addition developments in both An Garda Siochana and the Dublin Fire Brigade when determining appropriate pay and conditions of employment for this group of staff.
5. In that context the Court notes the terms of LCR 21449 and recommends that the parties enter into talks with a view to addressing this issue in the context of reviewing developments regarding pay and conditions of employment of all of the agreed comparator groups.
6. The outcome of those talks should give rise to a new comprehensive, consolidated agreement on pay and conditions of employment for this category of staff that should have the same standing as the 2003 Agreement.
7. The Court further finds that recent recruits into this service should have their annual and public holiday entitlements determined in accordance with the terms of the 2003 Agreement. However the Court, noting the terms of the 2009 Agreement, recommends that the parties when agreeing the revised terms and conditions for new entrants envisaged therein, should also agree a commencement date on which those terms will take effect.
8. The Court recommends that the parties should prioritise this matter and complete the talks process within 18 weeks of the date of this recommendation. Should the parties fail to reach agreement on any matter they should, in accordance with the terms of the 2003 Agreement refer all outstanding matters to the LRC and ultimately to the Labour Court for a definitive recommendation.
9. Finally the Court notes that the 2009 Agreement contains dispute resolution provisions that the parties should in future have resort to before referring matters to outside third parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
18th May 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.