LCR22707

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00038929, CA-00040097-003.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Adjudication Officer had issued the following Recommendation:

"I decline to hear this dispute as I have jurisdiction to do so as the matters substantially relate to a group of workers that relate to hours of work and to times of work. In these circumstances I have no alternative but to decline jurisdiction."

A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 January 2023.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00038929/CA-00040097-003, dated 30 June 2022) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Notice of Appeal was received on 8 August 2022. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 13 January 2023.

The Dispute

The Worker is employed by Swissport Ireland Limited (‘the Company’) as a full-time Ramp Agent at Dublin Airport. The Worker – along with a significant number of the Company’s other workers – was placed on temporary lay-off on 25 March 2020, following the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic and the consequent dramatic decline in the requirement for the Company’s services. There is a lay-off provision in the Worker’s written contract of employment. Lay-off is also provided for in a Company-Union Agreement negotiated with the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union.

The Worker submits that the process whereby he and his colleagues were selected for temporary lay-off in 2020 and then subsequently prioritised when invited to return to work from June 2021 onwards was “unfair and unreasonable”. In his written submission to the Court, the Worker claims he suffered “significant financial hardship” and “inordinate stress and anxiety” as a result of the Company’s actions. When asked by the Court what remedy the Worker was seeking from the Court, the Worker’s Representative indicated that he was seeking compensation for financial loss and a direction that the Company adheres strictly to all company-union agreements going forward.

The Company submits that it communicated the rationale it applied in the selection for lay-off process at all times to the local representatives of the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union. Specifically, it further submits, that the Worker was employed as Fueler and that he had been prioritised for lay-off ahead of another Fueler because the latter had additional skills over and above those of the Worker.

Discussion and Decision

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides:

• “(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.”

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
NCL	______________________
23 January 2023	Deputy Chairman