ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027881
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Sea and Rescue crew member | Safety and Rescue provider
|
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-00035830-001 | 24/04/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/12/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and having conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13 I confirm that I, as the appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Background:
The parties herein have been in dispute for some time regarding the calculation of working time to include stand by hours. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has made the case that the Respondent Employer has departed from industry norms and has done so without offering explanation. The process for this implementation lacks transparency and accountability. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent by way of response has stated that the Regulating body – the IAA - have approved the method of calculation. The Respondent has indicated that the IAA has confirmed it will join a working group to review the Flight Time Limitations of flight crew. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced in the course of two days of hearing. The Complainant herein is attached to the Helicopter search and rescue crews engaged by the state to supply the said SAR service to the Irish State. The Respondent named herein is the correct Employer. As I understand it, the IAA approve the operators manuals. I am advised that in and around 2010 the Employer in conjunction with the IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) applied a standby factoring system, calculating each night hour at half an hour for the first six hours and one quarter hour for the remaining hours. This factoring system is similar to other systems used by fixed wing Emergency Medical Service operators. This, it seems, allowed for a reduction in the annual hours worked by the technical crews in an attempt to keep their annual hours worked at a level below 2000 per annum. As I understand it, and by way of example, the UK SAR crew would use a calculation of half an hour for every relevant hour. The Complainant makes the case that this undercalculation means he does not get the credit for the hours of work and crucially could allow for exhaustion and bad decision making as the cumulative effect of working over 2000 hours inevitably leads to. The Complainant together with a number of his colleagues have raised their concerns with the Employer and, by extension, with the IAA. In particular, the Complainant questions the IAA’s authority to apply reduced standby hour calculations and questions how an Aeronautical Notice came to be enacted which allowed for retrospective application. The Complainant has made an argument for the re-introduction of half time factoring as opposed to quarter time factoring currently in place in line he says with international norms. In addition to the foregoing I understand that there may be residual issues regarding a premium payment for Sunday and Bank Holidays which the Complainant contends should be brought in. I note that these issues are in contention and I make no finding relating to such issues. I understand that there is a need to introduce a system of rostering flight crew.
|
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00035830 -001 I recognise that the lack of dialogue has been frustrating for the Complainant. His argument has merit. I recommend that the Employer meets with the IAA to review the Aeronautical notices that governs Flight Time Limitations to resolve this dispute to the satisfaction of the Complainant.
|
Dated: 10th December 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|