LCR23158

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 03 April 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 06 June 2025.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS: 

1. The Union are of the position that dispute breaches a collective agreement between the DAA (Cork Airport) and SIPTU members.
2. The Union argue that to date, the employees concerned have worked the new system under protest, however, they are willing to agree to the change with compensation in line with other agreements and precedence previously set out by DAA. In this case, the compensation sought by the Union is double the annual loss of the 36 hours, amounting to €1750. In addition to this, the Union maintain that hours already owed amount to 78 hours, which should be paid out on.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. The Employer maintains that the operational change of which this dispute concerns was lawfully and appropriately implemented following consultation, and that no collective agreement was breached.
4. The Employer is of the position that the proposed Time in Lieu for 2024 was fair and reasonable, and that there is no basis for retrospective or compensatory claims, as advanced by the Union.
   
   

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties arises from a withdrawal by the Employer from an existing arrangement that was collectively negotiated in 2016. The agreement provided for 36 hours’ Time in Lieu (TIL) on 1 April each year to compensate for the fact that due to volume of work staff were not always getting their contractual breaks.

In 2022 Management indicated its intention to withdraw from the arrangement.  Due to changes in business needs they felt breaks could now be facilitated and therefore the need for TIL no longer arose. It is the Unions position that the Employer acted unilaterally despite the fact that this was a collective agreement. No formal decision had been made by the parties to the 2016 agreement that it should end. TIL was paid for 2022 on 1 April 2023, and nothing has been paid since. It is the Unions position that there is a formula that has been used in the past for buyouts, but the Employer is refusing to apply the formula in this case.

The Employer stated that the business needs had changed, and breaks were now scheduled so the need for compensation no longer arose. They accepted that making a decision to unilaterally change a collective agreement was not conducive to good Industrial Relations.  It was their submission they were unable to locate a copy of the collective agreement and only saw it when the Union provided them with a copy.  The Employer confirmed that they did not consider taking a step back and engaging with the Union at that stage.  The Employer also confirmed that there was a formula that had previously been used in buyout situations, but they had decided not to apply that formula on this occasion and could offer no logical reason for that decision. The Employer confirmed that at conciliation they had offered TIL of 60 hours but where not prepared to pay compensation as well. The Union stated they were looking for 72 hours TIL for 2024 and 2025 and, €1,750 as a buyout for future years.

The Court having read the submissions of the parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions on the day recommends that the Workers covered by this claim, get 60 hours TIL and €1,750 each in full and final settlement of this claim. The Court further recommends that in the interest of good Industrial Relations that Management engage with the Union prior to making changes to collective agreements.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
ÁM	______________________
26 June 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.