Aer Lingus rejects Labour Court finding

In summer 2004, Aer Lingus, the Irish state-owned airline, took the unprecedented step of rejected a recommendation from the Labour Court. The Court's findings, while generally non-binding in law, have until now always been accepted by state-owned companies.

Aer Lingus, the state-owned airline, has rejected a Labour Court recommendation after complaining that, in the course of a recent case concerning cabin crew, the company’s arguments were not given 'appropriate weight' by the Court.

In the case concerned, the company had claimed that as part of Aer Lingus cabin crew’s contracts of employment, they can be transferred to suit the company’s needs. Having examined both the collective agreements concerned and the contracts of employment, the Labour Court- in a recommendation issued on 8 July 2004 - found that while a facility exists for management to post cabin staff on a temporary basis, no such right exists regarding permanent postings. The cabin crew concerned are members of the Irish Municipal Public and Services Trade Union (IMPACT).

According to the independent weekly, Industrial Relations News (IRN), after the company rejected the recommendation, the Labour Court’s deputy chair, Caroline Jenkinson, wrote to the Aer Lingus human resources director, Liz White, stating that contrary to the company’s claim, the Court had taken full account of the company’s arguments in the case in question.

The Aer Lingus decision followed a similar rebuff to the Court by another major employer in May 2004. On that occasion, Independent Newspapers, a highly influential private sector company, decided to force though a severance programme for over 200 'back-office' staff, members of the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) (IE0406102N). A bid to have the case referred to the Labour Court by the body that oversees Ireland’s social partnership agreements, the National Implementation Body (NIB) (IE0103233N), was also unsuccessful. At the time, industrial relations observers speculated that Independent Newspapers had set an example that others might follow. More recently, in August 2004, a private sector security firm, Brinks Allied, also rejected a Labour Court recommendation in the course of a dispute with SIPTU.

Although both Independent Newspapers and Brinks Allied are private sector operators, they are members of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), whose members usually accept these non-binding recommendations. The Aer Lingus case, however, is even more significant in that it involves a state-owned company.

There is growing belief within industrial relations institutions, and among employer and trade union representative bodies, that the traditional 'rules of engagement' surrounding Labour Court recommendations are under threat. Historically, the vast majority of companies - including those in the private sector - have accepted the Court’s non-binding recommendations. In recent years, however, there has been a gradual drift towards the greater use of formally binding decisions by the Court. For example, in the current national partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress (IE0304201N), the social partners are agreed that in disputes over 'ability to pay', at the final stage of an assessment process the Court can issue a 'binding' recommendation on whether a company can pay or not. Although these recommendations are not enforceable in law, the social partners have an understanding that they are binding in reality (IE0312204F).

The Labour Court can issue legally binding decisions in 'right to bargain' cases where trade unions or employee representatives that are not recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining submit claims before the Court (IE0309205F). It is not the Court’s role to advocate or impose collective bargaining per se, but it can determine aspects of pay and conditions submitted by worker representatives on a case-by-case basis.

All these developments may arguably, in the view of some commentators, indicate a gradual move towards 'enforcement' mechanisms and away from the traditional 'voluntarist' nature of Ireland’s industrial relations system (IE0406203F and IE0404202F).