Labour Court intervenes to avert strike by air traffic controllers

The Labour Court succeeded in persuading air traffic controllers at Ireland’s three main airports – Dublin, Cork and Shannon – to call off a potentially crippling 24-hour strike planned for 27 February 2008; it also managed to suspend an official overtime ban that had already caused some flight delays at these airports. However, the court did not make any judgement on the conflicting claims regarding whether the aviation industry is facing a shortage of air traffic controllers.

Strike threatens major disruption

The threatened one-day official strike planned for 27 February 2008 by air traffic controllers, who are members of the Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union (IMPACT), triggered a full-scale alert at the top level of Ireland’s social partnership system. Key figures from the government, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) engaged in negotiations behind the scenes, which helped the Labour Court to devise an acceptable recommendation to avert the strike action.

Ireland has not witnessed such a major utility strike since the five-day strike in the state-owned electricity company, the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), in 1992. A strike by air traffic controllers would not only have disrupted flights into and out of Ireland, it would also have had a serious impact on international flights. Some 80% of transatlantic flights from Europe to the United States (US) require the assistance of the Irish air traffic control system.

Overtime issue generates conflict

The planned strike was in response to a dispute between the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) and IMPACT over rostering arrangements for 300 air traffic controllers. The IAA insisted that the trade union’s main goal was to secure higher stand-by payments for controllers for working overtime, while the union insisted that the central issue of the dispute was a medium-term shortage of controllers. The IAA argued that new recruits due to come on stream in about 18 months would help to resolve the situation.

In devising the settlement terms, the Labour Court recognised the strong resistance among an estimated 30% of the air traffic controllers to working any overtime whatsoever. The remaining 70% of the controllers, who were prepared to work some overtime, would, however, only do so at the right price. The key issue, therefore, was to conclude a pragmatic deal that would provide a sufficient incentive to help the IAA overcome its medium-term staffing problem. Once the current batch of trainees become fully qualified, the overtime issue is expected to become less acute.

Labour Court recommendation

The Labour Court recommended that air traffic controllers be paid an allowance of €4,000 a year if they make themselves available, on a voluntary basis only, to work overtime. Those who volunteer will be liable to be called in to work overtime on up to 12 days a year. However, these volunteers may only be called in on eight occasions in one year. An overtime rate of double time will apply and staff will be paid for a minimum of five hours at overtime rates if they are called for duty.

The Labour Court pointed out that it was not its function or within its competencies to pass judgement on the conflicting claims by both parties as to whether or not a shortage of air traffic controllers exists.

Commentary

The specialist weekly magazine Industrial Relations News (IRN) commented on the role of the social partners in the dispute:

Social partner leaders were fully hands on in trying to devise a way out of the row, even before it got to the Labour Court. The stakes were too high to allow it to just drift into the court ... without considerable homework being done beforehand. The court knew the parameters of what would ‘give’ with both sides before it issued its careful and considered recommendation.

Despite this considerable input by the social partners and by the Labour Court, however, a key difficulty in finding a resolution was that, no matter how cleverly drafted the proposed agreement might be, a majority of air traffic controllers still had to vote on the agreement in a secret ballot. It is not uncommon that a group of skilled workers, such as air traffic controllers, find themselves in such a powerful position, thus making it difficult for trade unions to persuade them to take into account wider economic or national interests.

Nevertheless, the social partnership process has demonstrated on a number of occasions that it retains the ability to manage such potentially serious disputes and to bring them to a peaceful conclusion. The social partners know that they must act in a way that does not damage the integrity of partnership or the formal dispute resolution system. Furthermore, the social partners are aware that, given the democratic nature of trade union decision making, employees themselves – in this case the air traffic controllers – have to be persuaded to vote for the recommended outcomes. On this occasion, securing such an outcome was the practical job of the Labour Court and the social partners in what could have been a serious dispute.

Brian Sheehan, IRN Publishing