LCR21777

The Court notes that the parties concluded an agreement in 2012 to deal with the implications for aircraft engineers then based in Shannon arising from the closure of the Shannon Maintenance base.

Since the date of conclusion of that agreement matters have evolved in the company to the degree that the nature of the business has changed and that it has increased its operations generally but with specific reference to trans-Atlantic flying. The Court has been advised that a new aircraft will be based in Shannon with effect from 2019 involving an increase in the number of maintenance positions there. The Court has also been advised that no redundancies exist in the airline’s maintenance operation and that in fact it is recruiting aircraft engineers.

The Court has always supported the proposition that agreements between parties should remain in place until replaced by new agreements. That proposition rests upon an understanding in the general practice of good industrial relations that parties engage to develop their collective agreements over time as circumstances change or new developments occur which impinge upon the basis for those collective agreements.

In this case, the parties’ 2012 agreement provided for voluntary severance on the basis that any severance would be ‘voluntary on both sides’. That agreement was supported by a document from the company in 2012 which provided for the release of relevant staff on severance, even where ‘back-filling’ would be required. That same letter recorded that ‘release dates will be agreed for staff on the basis that the Shannon and Dublin operations will not suffer any negative impact’.

Subsequently, the Labour Court was asked in 2014 to consider the application of the 2012 agreement to the circumstances then pertaining. The Court recommended that‘the terms set out at Clause ii of the voluntary severance scheme provided for in the LRC proposal of 29^thNovember 2012 remain open to all those associated with this claim for the duration of the lease on the B757 aircraft’.

There is no dispute that the lease in place on the B757 aircraft at the time of issue of this Court’s 2014 Recommendation was due to expire in May 2016. That lease was subsequently extended and is now programmed to run until 2020.

It appears that the Company continued to allow the departure of aircraft engineers on the severance terms agreed in 2012 up to late 2017.

The current matter arises because three aircraft engineers have, on dates between late 2017 and January 2018, sought those severance terms. Two of those engineers remain working in Dublin as a result of the closure of the Shannon base in 2012 and one remains working in Shannon, albeit he or she did work in Dublin for a period on a rotational basis in the aftermath of the closure of the Shannon base. The Trade Union made clear to the Court however that the matter at issue affects thirteen aircraft engineers who have or might seek to leave their employment on receipt of the 2012 severance terms.

The Court has, effectively, been asked to interpret the 2012 agreement, the company’s 2012 supporting document and the Recommendation made in 2014 and in so doing to, effectively, make findings on the meaning of the phrase ‘voluntary on both sides’ and the phrase ‘for the duration of the lease on the B757 aircraft’.

The Court is of the view that the circumstances of this case are such that it is not appropriate to address the dispute simply on the basis of a technical finding isolated from the current position of the affected workers and the current nature of the maintenance operation in the company. The Court believes, at a remove of six years from the conclusion of the agreement reached on the closure of the Shannon base and four years after the anticipated expiry of the terms of that agreement, that it is more appropriate for the parties to address the matters in dispute by taking pragmatic account of current circumstances set against their original intentions in concluding the collective agreement in 2012.

It is clear that the parties’ intention in 2012 was to make acceptable arrangements to deal with the impact of the base closure on the staff affected.

The Court notes that of the thirteen claimants involved in the within matter, four continue to be employed in Shannon while nine remain employed in the Dublin.

It is the Court’s view that neither the 2012 agreement or the Court recommendation of 2014 can be contended to have continuing application to the four claimants who remain based in Shannon and consequently remain unaffected by the 2012 closure of the maintenance base in Shannon.

The Court however finds that the issues arising from the Shannon base closure, and addressed in the 2012 agreement, may continue to have meaning for the nine engineers based in Dublin.

Against that background the Court recommends that:

• 
  •The two engineers who have sought severance and who were redeployed to Dublin as a result of the closure of the Shannon base, and who remain based there, should be facilitated with exits on the 2012 terms provided the timing of those exits are optimised to minimise negative effect on the Dublin base.

• 
  •Any new positions in Shannon arising from the placing of a new aircraft there in 2019 and the possible placement of an aircraft there in 2020 should first be offered to the seven engineers redeployed to Dublin as result of the closure of the Shannon base and who remain based there.

• 
  •In the event of any further claim arising from the circumstances of the seven engineers redeployed to Dublin as result of the closure of the Shannon base, and who remain based there, the parties should engage through normal procedures as necessary in an effort to find agreement.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
LS______________________
7 SEPTEMBER 2018Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.