LCR22381

1.New Ways Of Working And Unilateral Reduction In Hours And Pay To 60%

BACKGROUND:

2.The dispute between the parties arises from the failure of the parties to reach agreement on the New Ways of Working proposals and the subsequent decision by the Employer to unilaterally reduce this cohort of workers’ hours and pay to 60% in circumstances where the vast majority of Workers in this employment were on 80% hours and pay.

Prior to Covid-19 the DAA were going through substantial change and the parties had commenced discussions on the introduction of a Target Operating Model which both sides felt could address existing inequities and streamline the work processes. These talks had broken down at local level and had been the subject of a referral to the WRC prior to Covid-19. The onset of Covid-19 and the impact of same on the business of the DAA necessitated the parking of those talks and the shifting of their focus to address the new challenges Covid-19 presented. In June 2020 the DAA commenced separate discussions with each of the Unions operating in DAA on what was termed “The New Ways of Working”(NWOW). The intention was that where agreement was reached in respect of NWOW Workers would remain at 80% hours and pay and there would be a road map back to 100%. The aim behind NWOW in line with other measures such as career breaks, voluntary redundancy, etc. was to avoid compulsory redundancies and/or permanent changes to core terms and conditions of employment. The NWOW contained a number of overarching principles which the Employer felt had a relevance across all areas of the employment and then five new ways of working which would be specific to each cohort of workers. In respect of the cohort of workers covered by this recommendation the Employer identified them as being: 1) Technology 2) Clean as you go 3) Teamwork / follow the work, 4) Rosters and 5) Flexibility. The parties were unable to reach agreement and with effect from October 2020 the Employer unilaterally reduced this cohort of Workers’ hours and pay to 60%.

The matter was referred to the Labour Court and a hearing took place on 19 March 2021.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
It is Connect’s submission that despite the fact their members rejected the proposals by 97% they were still engaging with management and that their members had engaged with the CEO and CPO and presented what they believed to be a reasonable alternative to the management proposals. Management had acted in breach of their procedures by unilaterally reducing the Workers’ hours and pay. The Union were of the belief that agreement could be reached on the five areas. However, the ongoing pay and hours cut were not conducive to successfully resolving their differences.

The Union had concerns that some of what they considered to be key building blocks for the new structure being considered under the Targeting Operating Model was a feature of the New Ways of Working. The team model that was being put forward by management as part of NWOW required a re-alignment of rosters within the group. Currently the Workers worked a variety of rosters and changes to the rosters would impact not only on them but also on their families. The Unions had sought that there could be flexibility to tweak the rosters at local level. The second issue relating to rosters is that the change would cause anomalies as workers on the team would have different terms of employment including the number of hours they worked. The Union felt this was an issue that could have been addressed in the Target Operating Model talks which unfortunately were now stalled. The second issue was the role of the technician on the team and management’s requirement that the technician would operate as a multi skilled member of the team in Terminal One. The Unions’ concerns stemmed from the existence of anomalies in the workers’ terms and conditions and the possible disgruntlement that could arise on the teams as a result of this. The Union felt that while the opportunity to address these anomalies may have existed in the Target Operating Model discussions, management‘s current proposals did not address these concerns. While the Union accepted that during the WRC conciliation there had been some discussion around the provision of a ‘Chairman’s Note’ in respect of the Target Operating Model talks the proposed contents of that note had not been teased out. The Union also had concerns in respect of management’s proposal on car park teams and the MIS department. The Union submitted that there was no issue with clean as you go and that in terms of new technology, they felt that an engagement around protocols applying to the use of any new technology and assurances in respect of how information acquired would be used, should resolve any concerns they had.

Unite submitted that the following issues were of particular concern to them. It was the Union’s understanding that the Employer had indicated a minimum number for core trades. It was felt that the number was 116 but may have been slightly higher, with 22 being the number for fitters and 10 the number for plumbers. The Union were seeking that the Employer would confirm these numbers and confirm that the current ratios within the craft groups would be maintained. Unite were also seeking confirmation from management that rosters could be discussed and tweaked locally. In respect of the Chairman’s note, Unite were looking for confirmation that discussions on the alignment or harmonisation of terms and conditions would take place and a date for the conclusion of that process to be included. It was Unite’s understanding that management did not have an issue with these three issues. Unite also raised issues in respect of baggage handling, the wording of the overarching document and the timeframe for the commencement of future pay talks.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The DAA have witnessed the virtual collapse of their business with passenger numbers falling to practically zero. Reducing the Workers’ pay and hours was not their preferred option. However, when they were unable to reach agreement on NWOW they had no option as they were haemorrhaging money and could not continue to do so. It was their submission that they had taken on board the Union’s submissions, they had taken upskilling off the table, they had worked with the Unions on rosters all with a view to reaching an agreement but to no avail. It was the Employer’s submission that they felt every time they addressed the Union’s concerns new issues were raised. The Employer acknowledges that reduced working hours is not an appropriate way to manage costs in the long term. The Employer needs to reach agreement with this cohort of Workers and believes that the proposed changes are the minimum they require. The DAA want to resolve these issues and to be in a position to rebuild when this crisis passes.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court in order to get a clear understanding of the party’s respective positions, engaged with the parties both in joint session and side session. The Court is aware of the difficult circumstances that are currently pertaining and the fact that from the Employer’s perspective these negotiations are part of a wider process that they successfully concluded with other Workers and their Trade Unions some time ago.

The Court recommends that in order for discussions between these parties to progress in a positive manner the Employer should put in train the process to return this cohort of Workers’ hours and pay to the same as their colleagues. The Court is aware from its discussion with the Employer and has flagged to the Unions that because it’s a fortnightly payroll that is prepared in advance the process will take four to six weeks. The Court notes that there is no real dispute between the parties in respect of new technology and clean as you go. In respect of the issues pertaining to the carpark and MIS Department the Court did not have any detailed engagement with the parties on these issues but would expect that these should be capable of being resolved by the parties if the other issues are resolved. In respect of Unite’s position that the date for future pay talks should be brought back into 2021 this is not an issue the Court believes it should address as part of this process. In respect of the issues arising from the management’s proposal to create teams that would follow the work across the campus such as technicians working as multiskilled members of the team in Terminal 1, alignment of Rosters within the group, minimum number and ratio of craft workers and the ‘Chairs letter’ in respect of harmonisation in the future, the Court believes the parties would benefit from further intensive talks on these issues. To that end that Court recommends as follows:

The Court recommends that the Employer puts in train the process to restore the Worker’s pay and hours. That over a four-week period commencing no later than Monday 29th March 2021 the parties with the assistance of a representative from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have intensive discussions with a view to reaching a solution to the issues set out in the paragraphs above, that will take account of the Unions’ concerns as reflected by the Court in the early paragraphs of this recommendation. At the end of the four-week period any unresolved issues should be referred back to this Division of the Labour Court for a final determination of them.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
NJ	______________________
22 March 2021	Deputy Chairman