FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD AIRPORT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Non-payment of hours worked on agreed roster.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members in relation to roster changes. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that the Employer has unilaterally changed the working hours of its members employed at Waterford Airport. The Union on behalf of its members contends that the Employer took the decision to unilaterally reduce its members' working hours from 39 to 21. Furthermore the Union maintains that its members have suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the change in rostered hours. 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 15th March, 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th May, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
On 7 June 2016, VLM – the only commercial airline then utilising Waterford Airport – cancelled all services into and out of the Airport with immediate effect. That airline subsequently entered bankruptcy owing a significant debt to the Airport. Staff were informed by management that its intention was to try to secure a replacement for VLM but that in the meantime new rosters would be implemented from 10 July 2016 to ensure that sufficient cover continued to be provided to service the Airport’s contract with the Irish Coastguard while at the same time avoiding any redundancies. The Union put management on notice that it would not accept the reduced working hours provided for in the proposed temporary rosters. On 10 July, the Union’s members attended for work in accordance with the old roster. The Union balloted its members on the issue and subsequently issued notice of strike action. The strike action commenced on 20 July 2016.
The Company submits that it would have become insolvent in a very short time after 10 July 2016 had it not introduced the new temporary rosters with reduced working hours. The Union submits that the Company should have engaged in meaningful discussions with it in relation to a voluntary redundancy scheme at the time. The Union is seeking reimbursement for its members for the hours they would have been rostered to work under their original roster for the period 10 July to 20 July 2016.
Recommendation
The Court has had the opportunity to consider both Parties’ written and verbal submissions. It has also reviewed the Company’s Employee Handbook a copy of which was furnished to the Court after the hearing. The Court notes there is no formal protocol in place between the Company and the Union to deal with situations such as that that arose in the circumstances of this case. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Parties should engage as soon as practicable with a view to agreeing such a formal protocol in writing.
The Court notes the precarious financial position that the Company found itself in following the sudden departure of its only commercial airline operator in July 2016. In the circumstances, the Company made the decision which it considered to be in the best interests of the business and those employed in it: i.e. to introduce temporary reduced working hours, while avoiding redundancies, until such time as a replacement airline could be secured. On this basis the Union’s claim fails.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
16th June 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.