ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017871
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Airline Cabin Crew member | An Airline |
Representatives | Company Employee Relations Manager
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00023058-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint / dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The issue in contention concerns the arrangements governing transition from Ground Operations to Cabin Crew and the type of Cabin Crew Contract offered to the Complainant in Spring 2018. The issue was the scheduling of required Training Courses necessary to qualify a Staff Member for Cabin Crew Operations. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant began employment in May 2016 in Ground Operations on a series of Fixed Term Contracts. In October 2017 she successfully applied for a position as Cabin Crew in the Contract type of Permanent Seasonal Cabin Crew - called PSC for convenience. The Complainant was at this time completing a full-time Third Level Degree course with examinations in April 2018. The latest starting date the Airline could offer the Complainant was the 23rd April 2018. The Airline was unable to move from this date as the required Training Course for the PSC role commenced on this date. The only alternative was to accept a Fixed Term Cabin Crew Contract -a FTC -the training course for which began in late May - after the Complainants exams. The Complainant very reluctantly accepted this FTC position rather than forgo her final degree examinations. Subsequently in late 2018 -November - she was again offered a PSC and commenced in same in April 2019. The Respondent acted quite inflexibly in their approach to the Training Courses. Effectively the May 2018 Course for FTC and the April Course for PSC were identical. The Complainant could easily have been accommodated on the May course as a PSC. The loss of one year in PSC seniority will have long term consequences in regard to her seniority ranking in applying for future promotions and a potential move to a permanent Full-time position. Her claim is for financial losses incurred in the Summer/Autumn season of 2018 arising from being on a Fixed Term as Opposed to a PSC Contract and an adjustment to her Seniority status in the PSC rankings. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent representative had quite a degree of sympathy for the Complainant and her Examination situation. However, she explained that the scheduling of Training Courses and the selection of Panels for same was, not to put too fine a point on it, a fraught area among and within staff particularly as regards the potential placing of personnel on any subsequent seniority lists. As a result, it was an area well covered by Collective Agreements /Understandings with the relevant Trade Unions. To have afforded the Complainant the flexibility she suggested, while on the face of it a minor concession, would likely have given rise to dissatisfaction among other colleagues / staff members particularly over the Seniority issue. The current system was working well, and the Airline was very reluctant to make individual exceptions. In any event the Complainant secured a PSC place in November 2018 and any losses are more apparent than real. The loss of a PSC seniority ranking position is minor. The current system, while possibly somewhat imperfect, is working well and the Complainant has not made any sustainable arguments to alter it. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
A considerable amount of written and oral evidence was given in this case. The Respondent is a very large employer with staff numbers well into the thousands. It is a fully Unionised environment covered by a very complex network of Collective Agreements and Understandings. An external WRC Adjudicator would need to be very cautious before seeking to amend or “tweak” arrangements in favour of individual cases unless there was a very cogent Legal/Equality or Basic Fairness issue involved. I did not think that this was the case here. The Complainant, for good reasons,did not want to sacrifice a number of years third Level education by not completing her Final Examination. Her decision to accept the Fixed Term Contract in 2018 as an alternative to the PSC was not an easy one but would have to be seen as a proper long-term career investment/decision. The fact that she secured a PSC in November 2018 must be seen as a good development for her and any very minor losses in the Summer/Autumn of 2018 were a small price to pay for the completion of her degree course. The current Training arrangements are working and while she may feel aggrieved over an inflexibility in her case I did not think a case had been made to interfere with them. In conclusion therefore and all things considered I could not find in her favour as regards the fallout from the Training Couse scheduling in April/May 2018. |
4: 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. Please refer to Section Three above for detailed reasoning. |
CA-00023058-001 | I Recommend that the current arrangements remain as is and the claim be set aside as not Well Founded. |
Dated: June 6th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|