FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - CABIN CREW (REPRESENTED BY FORSA) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Cabin Crew Staffing Levels For A321LR Neo Planes
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25 July 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17 September 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the crewing proposed by the company is unworkable.
2. The Union makes particular reference to the capacity of crew to take their breaks on certain flights.
3. Aer Lingus is a highly profitable company and the introduction of this aircraft will only see improvements in their profit margins.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Forsa’s claim carries with it, the real risk that Aer Lingus will lose these aircraft to another airline within the IAG Group.
2. The B757 operated very successfully for the past 5 years, with a crew complement of 4.
3. It is a matter for Aer Lingus to determine crewing and service flows.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. It is clear to the Court that the parties accept that it is for the company to determine crewing and service flows. The Trade Union in this case contends however that the crewing proposed by the company is unworkable and makes particular reference to the capacity of crew to take their breaks on certain flights.
The Court notes that trials of the proposed crewing have, to date, taken place on aircraft other than those at issue in the within dispute.
The Court notes the proposal of the company made on 17thJuly 2019 and in particular the crewing set out in that proposal [crewing of four on all routes except two where crewing will be 4 +1 crew member including a CSM instead of a senior on both]. The Court notes that elements of that proposal were identified as being contingent on acceptance and implementation of LCR21893.
In all of the circumstances and recognising that, at its heart, this dispute is a disagreement between the parties as regards the ‘workability’ of the crewing proposed by the airline for the particular aircraft, the Court recommends that the crewing structure proposed by the airline on 17thJuly 2019 should be trialled on the new aircraft. These trials should take place over a period of three months and, in common with earlier trials, should be conducted with participation by the Trade Union.
At the end of that three-month trial period the parties should re-engage to jointly assess the experience of ‘workability’ of the crewing with particular regard to the capacity of crew to take their breaks. When that ‘workability’ question has been resolved the parties should finalise an agreement on the operation of the new aircraft.
In the event that the parties, having resolved the ‘workability issue, find difficulty in resolving any other matter they may return to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
3 October 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.