FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - 1800 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY ICTU (SIPTU, FORSA, CONNECT, UNITE)) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. This 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 20 November 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 December 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matter before the Court follows on from an earlier Recommendation (LCR21560) wherein the Court recommended
- ‘noting that the parties have had no effective engagement to develop dialogue on the matter of profit sharing, the parties, without prejudice, engage to explore what potential exists to agree an appropriate ‘profit share’ scheme having regard to any potential effect of such a proposition on normal pay determination mechanisms.’
The Court takes particular note of the good faith efforts of both sides to make an agreement which would address the Trade Union claim. Taking that into consideration the Court takes the view that an approach should be taken to the matter which would result in a settlement of the claim outside of the construction of a ‘profit share’ scheme as such. The Court therefore recommends as follows:
•That the company should apply a pay increase of 1% with effect from 1stJanuary 2019.
•That the company should make a payment of €300 in the form of vouchers in settlement of any issue as regards date of application of the pay increase.
•That, taking account of the fact that the IDRB has not convened for 18 months approximately and the low rate of acceptance of its decisions over its lifetime, the parties should jointly review the continuing value of the IDRB as a dispute resolution mechanism. That review should conclude within three months of the date of this recommendation.
•That the parties should engage over a three month period to address and find agreement on the issues raised by the company as regards the range of locally applicable bonus / incentive type schemes which have operated in the airline. In the event that the parties are unable to find direct agreement on any matter arising the parties should agree to exhaust procedures up to and including a referral to the Court in order to finalise agreement.
•That the parties should engage in order to develop a shared understanding of any issue of concern as regards security in the airline. Having developed a shared understanding of any such problem the parties should engage to explore all possible solutions. All engagement on this agenda should be complete at a local level within three months of the date of acceptance of this Recommendation. In the event that the parties are unable to achieve agreement on any matter arising the parties should utilise all available procedures up to and including a referral to the Court in order to finalise agreement.
The above recommendation should be accepted in full and final settlement of the Trade Union claim for the development of a ‘profit share’ scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
22 January 2019______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.