FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - 83 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY F�RSA) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Terms for Redundancy and Redeployment The parties before the Court are party to collective agreements which provide for collective dispute resolution utilising the services of the Workplace Relations Commission and ultimately, if required, the voluntary referral of unresolved matters to the Court. The dispute before the Court however has been directly referred by the Trade Union alone and the employer has decided not to participate in the hearing of the Court. The effect of these circumstances is that, while the employer did write extensively to the Court in advance of the hearing, the Court is unable to engage with the employer to gather a full understanding of the matters in dispute from that perspective. The Court is similarly deprived of the benefit of the work of the Conciliation Service of the WRC and of any understanding of efforts by that service to refine matters in dispute or even to explore and develop understanding of the dynamics of the dispute. The Court does however have the benefit of written and oral submissions and the attendance and engagement of the Trade Union at its hearing. The statutory function of the Court is to hear parties to a dispute and, if the Court considers it to be appropriate, to express an opinion on how it might be resolved based on the merits of the dispute and on its engagement with, and the submissions of the parties. The facts of the current matter are that the employer has asserted that all cabin crew will be able to avail of voluntary redundancy or a transfer to a base in Dublin or Cork where a vacancy exists. The employer has offered voluntary severance to eligible crew in those bases with a view to creating vacancies which might be availed of by re-deploying staff. The employer stated in its letter to the Court that it has offered the following principal terms, as applicable, to staff who might relocate or who might leave the employment by way of a redundancy: Severance: Five weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement to a maximum of 104 weeks pay capped at €180,000 [Travel concessions are also on offer for employees and their family members when they leave their employment according to the employer] Re-deployment: An option to re-deploy to Cork or Dublin with a staff member’s current grade, salary and part-time working arrangements, where relevant, retained. The employer has asserted that the severance terms on offer are the ‘prevailing’ terms currently applicable to other business units within the employment which are undergoing change currently. The Trade Union has, in their written and oral submissions, contended that the situation in the Shannon base means that staff are facing compulsory loss of employment. In that context the Union submits that the following principal terms should be made available by the employer, as applicable, to staff departing the employment or re-deploying: Severance “4+2” weeks’ pay per year of service capped at 130 weeks’ pay A long service payment ranging from €12,500 to €25,000 A retraining package of a minimum of €5,000 Full travel qualification concessions threshold to be moved from 25 to 20 years’ service. Re-deployment A re-location allowance of €5,000 The right to return to the base should it re-open in the future on a person’s terms and conditions of employment of that date The right to a roster bid to allow crew to work substantially on flights that originate in Shannon Against the background of these positions, the Court is asked to make a Recommendation. As a result of the means of referral to the Court, the Court has effectively no understanding as to the reasons underpinning the failure of the parties to find direct agreement and no understanding, developed through engagement, of the operational or financial implications of any recommendation which would alter the terms offered by the employer. Against that background the Court notes that the matter giving rise to the dispute is the closure of the Shannon base in circumstances where the employer has asserted that it has suffered very significant losses generally and that it cannot operate the Shannon base cost effectively. In the view of the Court, the proposition that the Court, without the opportunity for comprehensive engagement with both parties or the benefit of the work of the WRC, would effectively develop its own proposals for the terms to apply to severance or re-deployment of staff in a matter of the significance of the matter before the Court, is not consistent with the established role of the Court in significant industrial dispute situations. The statutory mechanisms which allow a unilateral referral to the Court would not normally be understood as being the means to secure a recommendation from the Court in significant collective trade disputes. This is all the more true where the parties have agreed mechanisms in place for resolution of collective trade disputes which do not include referral to Court by one party in such situations. In the view of the Court,thefact that the employer felt it necessary to assert in writing to the Court in advance of its hearing that it is“not in a position to accept any Recommendation from the Court that could increase the cost or vary the options that have been offered to impacted crew”lends even greater emphasis to a concern that any recommendation of the Court in the current situation has limited potential to enhance the prospect of the parties finding agreement. The Court makes the above observations without intending to criticise either party. The Court understands that the parties, who have a long standing and robust agreed relationship, have arrived at the current position in good faith. The Court, in all the circumstances, declines to issue a Recommendation which would substantially alter the terms on offer from the Company to staff availing of severance or re-deploying following the closure of the Shannon base. The Court does however recognise that certain staff may not, for practical reasons, be in a position to take up a re-deployment opportunity in Cork or Dublin and may leave the employment as a result. Such staff will face significant challenges in securing continuing employment in the role of cabin crew in Shannon and consequently will face the need to re-train or otherwise adapt to a new employment situation. In recognition of that fact, the Court does recommend that the employer should alter the terms it has offered so as to make available a payment of €5,000 each to all staff leaving the employment so as to support their efforts to adapt their skill set and thus to enhance their prospects of future employment. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
