Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Airline Worker

An Airline

Representatives

Lisa Connell Fórsa Trade Union

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003686

20/01/2025

This dispute relates to the grade of a cabin crew member and difficulties experienced by this worker during a re-grading process. At the hearing both sides explained their positions and put forward their preferred method of resolution.

The worker’s representative provided a detailed written summation of the worker’s case. 

A WRC Protocol exists in respect to filling promotional posts for cabin crew, with clear criteria as to how promotional posts should be filled. The worker submits that the said Protocol was not applied by the employer on two separate occasions.  This resulted in a number of more junior crew placed into posts ahead of the worker unfairly.

The worker submits that the employer refused to hold a grievance meeting. As a result, the process was closed off and answers around the process were not provided. Natural process and due procedures were absent for this worker.

The worker was unfairly treated on the basis of

(i)                  Being passed over for promotion outside of the terms of the agreed Protocol on two occasions and

(ii)                Due process being circumvented due to the refusal of the employer to hear the grievance.

The worker puts forward that this recommendation should find in their favour and;

(i)                  Take cognisance of the worker’s loss of earnings to the value of €2,133.

(ii)                Recognise that the worker has missed out on progression of one point on her pay scale.

(iii)               Recognise that a grievance procedure was closed off and the worker was not afforded fair procedures.

The employer provided a detailed written submission.

The employer accepts that the WRC Protocol was inadvertently not considered when, in November 2023, the information was being gathered to determine who was in scope to receive a permanent all year-round Senior Cabin Crew Contract.

The employer has acknowledged this error internally on those impacted and has taken several steps to rectify the situation resulting in additional cost and increased headcount being carried even though this was not required operationally.

The employer has honoured the original contractual offers that were made in November 2023 and in addition has applied retrospection to those who were eligible for promotion (by virtue of the Protocol) but who were overlooked in error and who did not receive promotions until March 2024.

The employer submits that the worker in this case was not in scope for promotion at the relevant time in 2023 by reference to the Protocol and thus did not experience any personal loss or disadvantage herself because of the error made in November 2023.

The employer accepts that two colleagues more ‘junior’ to the worker did receive permanent promotions ahead of her as a result of the error whilst she was offered a seasonal promotion for 2024 which commenced in March 2024 until November 2024.

The worker was herself promoted permanently to the SCCM grade in March 2025, in line with the Protocol selection criteria and was verbally advised of this promotion in November 2024.

The employer submits that it has engaged fully with the worker and her union and has explained the situation to all involved.

The employer has acknowledged the inadvertent error which took place whereby the specified selection criteria in the Protocol were not followed fully in November 2023. All possible steps have been taken to rectify the situation noting the overriding accepted principle in the protocol document that cabin crew promotions are not automatic but are determined by operational requirements.

The employer asks that the claim not be upheld.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker asserts that recognition be made of the fact that two more junior colleagues were re-graded ahead of her, albeit that she was not within scope for a regrade at the time. 

The employer argues that to pay the worker for the monies she is claiming as a loss would be paying her for a role she did not work.

It is clear that the worker was not in scope for re-grading in November 2023, if the Protocol had been followed. However, the Protocol was not followed, and two other non-eligible colleagues were regraded ahead of her. The error by the employer has since been rectified and the Protocol is now being operated correctly. The worker has been moved to the SCCM grade.

Notwithstanding this, I believe the difficulty and upset created by the non-application of the Protocol on the worker must be recognised.  Considering this I believe the employer should make an ex-gratia payment of €750 and this should be accepted by the worker as bringing this matter to a close.