FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAA CORK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Breach of 2013/2014 Agreement regarding 7 Airport Police Sergeants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members employed as Airport Police Sergeants at Cork Airport. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that the Employer has acted in breach of an Agreement established between the parties in 2013.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th October, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has breached the terms of the 2013/14 Agreement in relation to the Airport Police and Fire Service.
2. The Union maintains that under the 2013/14 Agreement the complement of Security Sergeants is 7 and any changes to this must be carried out by agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that it has not acted in breach of the terms of the 2013/14 Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute concerns an alleged breach of the 2013/2014 Company /Union Agreement relating to the Airport Police and Fire Service (Cork APFS Agreement). This dispute arose as a result of the Union’s contention that the Company is breaching the above agreement by unilaterally reducing the Sergeant complement from 7 to 6 resulting in the demotion of an individual and in replacing that post with a dedicated Training Officer post.
The Union's position is that the interim Sergeant position was to be reviewed after 12 months. The APFS Agreement clearly sets out in the section headed Sergeants, reporting structures and duties at the bottom of page 7 “The role of the ASU Supervisors and the Sergeants in security compliance will be reviewed after a period of 12 months in operation.” There was an exchange of emails between the parties on various issues relating to the agreement where the Union highlighted their expectation that the position would be made permanent at the end of the 12 month period. The Employer's position in those emails was that the position would be reviewed and no decision could be made before that review took place. The Union stated because no review in line with the Agreement took place they formed a view that the position had become permanent by default. However, in February 2017 the Employer unilaterally decided to end the interim arrangement and stepped down the individual who was holding the post.
The Employer's position is that they accept the agreement states that a review would take place after 12 months. They had numerous engagements with the group in relation to the provision of a training role and while the interim role was not specifically mentioned they felt it was clear that it continued to be interim. They could not go outside the agreed number and that they had no requirement for seven security sergeants rather they required 6 sergeants and a dedicated training role.
The APFS agreement is a collective agreement signed up to by both parties. In relation to the relevant clause in the agreement it is unambiguous, it states “will be reviewed after a period of 12 months in operation” neither party could point to a joint review that took place in line with the requirements of the Agreement.
It is clear, that when the Agreement was being drawn up both parties agreed that there was a need for a review of the ASU Supervisors and the Sergeants in security compliance after the new structure was in operation for 12 months.
The Court recommends that the parties now carry out such a review.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
30th November 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.