ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007117

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Catering Worker	An Airline

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Airline Managers

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00009586-001	07/02/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

This claim is closely linked on parallel grounds with Adj 6834 and Adj 6835.

Background:

The issues in contention concern the operation of Christmas and New Year holiday rosters in the Catering Department of an Airline.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The operation of the Rosters over the Christmas/New Year period 2016, particularly the aspects of the rosters that cover days immediately following Annual leave were unfair to the Complainant and breached long established custom and practice.

The Union, in Oral evidence, refuted any allegation that the claim had possible wider repercussive effects in a large Department. It was limited to the Complainant only.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Airline has well established Holiday rostering arrangements. It has always been clear that the Christmas Period, which is variable from year to year regarding the actual days of the week Christmas Day & New Year’s Day falls, requires rostering arrangements which allow for a fair allocation of time off to all staff. Christmas 2016 was no exception and the claim is completely at variance with long established custom and practice. The claim has no merit particularly in terms of fair play to all staff. Detailed Roster records were presented in written evidence.

In Oral evidence the Respondent pointed to the fact that the Rostering Arrangements cover a multitude of staff and the current claim would have serious repercussive effects.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

The Airline Catering Department concerned employs a substantial body of staff -well in excess of 100. The Respondent and the Complainant’s Union produced in evidence a long-established Document “Guidelines for Annual Leave Allocation in Catering”. It is well known that the Airline has been fully Unionised for many years. Detailed Collective Agreements and negotiated procedures cover virtually all aspects of its business.

It was clear to me that this case, albeit being brought purportedly on behalf of one individual was clearly “a Body of Workers” dispute and was not within my jurisdiction. Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act ,1969 refers.

Rights commissioners.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

Accordingly, as I lack jurisdiction, I am prohibited from proceeding with the case. As a consequence, the claim, in its current format cannot be deemed, procedurally, to be well founded and must be dismissed.

As an additional Authority I refer to Labour Court Appeal Decision No AD1387 on November 2013 which I found particularly pertinent (involving the same Union and a very closely allied Employer) to this case.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Recommendation
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00009586-001	As I have no jurisdiction to hear this case, the claim, in its current procedural format, cannot be well founded and is dismissed.

Dated: 20th February 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words: