Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Airline Worker Ms. B

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 - 00003678

20/01/2025

This dispute relates to the issuing of permanent all year around (AYR) senior cabin crew contracts. A number of the workers colleagues that are more junior to the worker her (by reference to seniority/date of entry into Crew Operations) were promoted ahead of her by reason of an administrative error by the employer.

This slaim was submitted on 20th of January 2025.

Both parties provided detailed submissions in advance of the hearing and at the hearing of the matter and outlined their respective positions along with proposed resolutions.

The worker’s representative provided a detailed written submission in advance of the hearing.

The worker submits that a WRC Protocol was agreed in January 2020 in respect to the filling of promotional posts for cabin crew, with clear criteria as to how promotional posts should be filled.

The worker in this case submits that the agreed Protocol was not applied by the employer on two separate occasions which resulted in a number of more junior crew being unfairly placed into posts ahead of the worker.

In 2024 it was identified that the WRC protocol was not applied correctly twice, with two separate appointment processes that both deviated from the WRC Protocol and criteria. This in turn saw cabin crew members displaced in their promotion eligibility and within their order of eligibility, due to a divergence from the WRC Protocol. This saw some cabin crew appointed into a promotional role ahead of more eligible staff members, of which the within worker is one.

This claim is seeking to address that staff members less eligible than the worker were appointed into a promotional role ahead of her which she submits resulted in a loss of earnings for the worker.

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

The worker submits that she was unfairly treated on the following basis.

(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 €2,140.

(ii)          Recognise that the worker has missed out on prop;gression 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 submits that.

This claim relates to the issuing of permanent all year around (AYR) senior cabin crew contracts.

The claim can be summarised that the worker is aggrieved as a small number of colleagues that are more junior to her (by reference to seniority/date of entry into Crew Operations) were promoted ahead of her by reason of an administrative error. The worker was herself promoted to an AYR senior cabin crew contract in March 2025.

On 16 January 2020, just prior to the Covid pandemic a protocol was agreed at the WRC following conciliation between the employers and Forsa. This protocol set out an agreed approach regarding seasonal promotions for cabin crew.

The Protocol provides that: “Should future seasonal or permanent promotions become available; they will be granted by applying the following criteria:

1.       Firstly, by reference to the number of seasons an individual has operated in the promotional role on a seasonal basis.

2.       Secondly, in order of seniority.

The employer accepts that the WRC Protocol was mistakenly 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. Thus, appointments were made in November 2023 and in February 2024 from the previous year’s recruitment campaign which did not apply the criteria agreed in the WRC Protocol but instead applied the criteria of Merit (based on interview score) followed by seniority.

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 submits that they have 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 November 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 a number of 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 2023  which commenced in May 2023 until November 2023 and for 2024 which commenced in March 2024 until October 2024.

The worker was herself promoted permanently to the SCCM grade in March 2025, in line with the Protocol criteria and was verbally advised of this promotion in November 2024. The employer acknowledges that it did not hold a grievance hearing but 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 and the criteria of merit and seniority were instead applied after an interview process.

The employer submits that 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 employer accepts that the WRC Protocol was mistakenly not considered in November 2023, when determining who was in scope to receive a permanent all year-round Senior Cabin Crew Contract (SCCM). The employer acknowledges that appointments were made in November 2023 and in February 2024 from the previous year’s recruitment campaign which did not apply the criteria agreed in the WRC Protocol but instead applied the criteria of Merit (based on interview score) followed by seniority.

It is accepted that a number of colleagues more “junior” to the Worker (by reference to the employer’s seniority list) did receive permanent promotions ahead of her as a result of the error whilst she was offered a seasonal promotion for a seasonal promotion for 2023  which commenced in May 2023 until November 2023 and for 2024 which commenced in March 2024 until October 2024.   The employer also stated that the worker has been moved to the permanent SCCM grade as of March 2025 and that she was notified of this verbally in November 2024.

The worker agrees that she has been appointed to a permanent SCCM position since March 2025 but asserts that recognition should be made of the fact that a number of more junior colleagues were regraded ahead of her following the November 2023 process, albeit that she was not within scope for a regrade at the time.

The employer submitted an extract from the overall seniority list in cabin crew detailing those who would have been eligible for either a seasonal SCCM contract and/or all year round SCCM contract at the time the Protocol ought to have been applied in November 2023.

It is clear that the worker was not in scope for re-grading in November 2023 even if the Protocol had been followed.

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. However, the employer does acknowledge that the Protocol was not followed, and that other non-eligible colleagues were regraded ahead of the worker.

The worker advised the hearing that this has a continuing effect on her in respect of seniority as she is now below those who were incorrectly promoted ahead of her.

The employer advised the hearing that the error has since been rectified, and the Protocol is now being operated correctly. The employer stated that the worker has been moved to the SCCM grade as of March 2025.

The employer advised the hearing  that once the error was identified, it sought to rectify matters but stated that it could not remove the promotions from those who had received them in error so in addition the employer 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 their promotions until March 2024. 

The employer accepts that a number of  colleagues more “junior” to the Worker (by reference to the seniority list) did receive permanent promotions ahead of her as a result of the error whilst she was offered a  seasonal promotion for 2023  which commenced in May 2023 until November 2023 and for 2024 which commenced in March 2024 until October 2024.  The Worker was herself promoted permanently to the SCCM grade in March 2025 in line with the WRC protocol selection criteria. The employer submits that it has engaged fully with Forsa and with the Worker and has explained this situation fully to all involved.

Having considered the totality of the matters referred herein I conclude that there has been a level of distress and detriment caused to the worker as a result of the employer’s failure to adhere to the agreed Protocol. Accordingly, I recommend that the employer pay to the worker the sum of €1,000 as an ex-gratia payment.

I recommend that the employer pay to the worker the sum of €1,000 as an ex-gratia payment.