PDA

View Full Version : All Aer Lingus Cabin Crew to be Sacked



C. Flower
11-03-2010, 06:39 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0311/1224266046085.html

All of the Aer Lingus Cabin Crews - Impact Members who didn't agree to the cuts package offered - have been told they will be made redundant on minimum redundancy terms and will then have to re-apply for their own jobs.
They say that several hundred jobs will go.

I'm quite surprised this is legal and it certainly is a huge challenge to the Trade Unions.

johnfás
11-03-2010, 06:55 PM
It is illegal... sort of.

The way they will be doing it is what will make it legal. It is legal provided they are not rehired to the same position. So Aer Lingus will have worked out a way of altering their job titles and responsibilities, which they deem to sufficiently satisfy the employment law requirements that these are technically "different" jobs.

It is always open to challenge by an individual but it is not uncommon throughout other jurisdictions so provided Aer Lingus do it "right" they will manage it.

Lifeisagame
11-03-2010, 06:57 PM
I firmly believe that these people should be fired and made re-apply for their jobs.
Furthermore, when they do re-apply, maybe someone with HR skills may interview them.
As a frequent flier, I had a flight to catch which was leaving from Area A, this was well before the disputes. It was raining heavy and we had to walk a sufficient distance for all to get very wet.
I Commented to Cabin Crew and was told " Take it up with your TD". Well folks it is time for you to do the same and you will get NO sympathy from people like me that are subjected to the arrogance on a daily basis.
The wheel has turned and I will enjoy.

Fing Fers
11-03-2010, 06:57 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0311/1224266046085.html

All of the Aer Lingus Cabin Crews - Impact Members who didn't agree to the cuts package offered - have been told they will be made redundant on minimum redundancy terms and will then have to re-apply for their own jobs.
They say that several hundred jobs will go.

I'm quite surprised this is legal and it certainly is a huge challenge to the Trade Unions.

Take it or leave attitude, this may well spread to other sectors. What can you do, funds aint there to pay wages so what options do employers have. Air Lingus is a bit different no doubt the uppers are absorbing available funds quite well.

C. Flower
11-03-2010, 06:58 PM
Great first post, johnfas :)

But aren't devices to "get around" the law, not in its spirit, a bit vulnerable to challenge ?

johnfás
11-03-2010, 07:01 PM
Great first post, johnfas :)

But aren't devices to "get around" the law, not in its spirit, a bit vulnerable to challenge ?

They are certainly and one would assume that it will be litigated on.

However, I don't think Aer Lingus would be going this route if they didn't think they would get away with it. As I said, it is not entirely uncommon in other jurisdictions so they will likely try to rely on that.

I would conject that they may structure it so that the "new" employees are outsourced and technically not Aer Lingus employees so they will not be "rehiring" them.

But as you said, it is of course open to challenge. Cheers for the welcome.

C. Flower
11-03-2010, 07:07 PM
Your tea is in the Welcome thread...
I'm trying to remember if the same thing happened with the ferry crews. It was certainly similar. It will cause a lot of bitterness if it goes ahead.

johnfás
11-03-2010, 07:08 PM
Irish Ferries moved their ships to a different country, Lithunia I think it was. So I imagine the crew are now technically employed by a Lithuanian company.

Where it is is irrelevant though, because they could make everyone redundant and then rehire through an outsourced Irish company just as easily.

Lifeisagame
11-03-2010, 07:14 PM
Fire and no re-hire.
Set the level for employment of the Cosy Cafe of the so called Working Class.
The rest of us work to live they work to look nice.
I am Cabin Crew
No, you are a tea lady/gent and shop assistant

Cassandra Syndrome
11-03-2010, 07:28 PM
Fire and no re-hire.
Set the level for employment of the Cosy Cafe of the so called Working Class.
The rest of us work to live they work to look nice.
I am Cabin Crew
No, you are a tea lady/gent and shop assistant

Did you watch too many Airplane disaster films as a kid?

Xray
11-03-2010, 07:33 PM
I thought it was illegal to make someone redundant if their position still exists?
You cannot legally sack someone and then rehire someone else to do the same job, otherwise there would be choas. You are into unfair dismissals territory there I think.

I would be looking at the legal options here of a challenge under redundancy laws.

You can out source the jobs but you cannot replace them as I have had it explained to me.

I think now we can see the second phase of the smash the unions campaign starting to take shape. Once partnership, the LRC and the PS unions were totally torn to shreads publicly the way was open to go after all sorts of basic hard won conditions. I expect maternity leave, holidays, sick leave, health and safety and pay rates for everyone to become "more comppetive".

Aer Lingus staff should be supported by all union members if and when they take action here.

Xray
11-03-2010, 07:35 PM
I firmly believe that these people should be fired and made re-apply for their jobs.
Furthermore, when they do re-apply, maybe someone with HR skills may interview them.
As a frequent flier, I had a flight to catch which was leaving from Area A, this was well before the disputes. It was raining heavy and we had to walk a sufficient distance for all to get very wet.
I Commented to Cabin Crew and was told " Take it up with your TD". Well folks it is time for you to do the same and you will get NO sympathy from people like me that are subjected to the arrogance on a daily basis.
The wheel has turned and I will enjoy.


Great attitude! by that logic we might as well sack everyone in the country if you ask me.

C. Flower
11-03-2010, 07:50 PM
Get attitude, by that logic we might as well sack everyone in the country if you ask me.

We're well on the way to that, the McDonalds jobs expected.

Lifeisagame
11-03-2010, 07:58 PM
Sorry XRay you need to study some more Employment Law.

CF nah I just flew too often and witnessed the attitudes that these people have. As I said, they are shop assistants in a tube. Their skills are no better than those on a Factory floor in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, it is the real skill of the Pilots that decide whether you live or die. Frequent fliers know that they are responsible for opening emergency doors if needed.
But reality is, if you fall from height in an aircraft, there is no way out:eek:
Adopting the position is just kissing your ass goodbye.:(
That is life for the people that travel to live and create employment. But you have a better chance of surviving than you have if you walk in front of those moronic Greens Cycling to the Dail.

Xray
11-03-2010, 09:35 PM
Sorry XRay you need to study some more Employment Law.

CF nah I just flew too often and witnessed the attitudes that these people have. As I said, they are shop assistants in a tube. Their skills are no better than those on a Factory floor in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, it is the real skill of the Pilots that decide whether you live or die. Frequent fliers know that they are responsible for opening emergency doors if needed.
But reality is, if you fall from height in an aircraft, there is no way out:eek:
Adopting the position is just kissing your ass goodbye.:(
That is life for the people that travel to live and create employment. But you have a better chance of surviving than you have if you walk in front of those moronic Greens Cycling to the Dail.



I dont care if they collect sea shells for a living, the law still applies to them and I dont think uinlaterally sacking the lot of any group of workers is going to lead to anything other than utter industral chaos. I would support the demons of hell against such action.

There have been problem in that air line for many years. I have know quite few people working in it over a long period of time. I agree it would drive you mad to think about some of the carry on in it and in Dublin airport in general. That is a managerial failure on the part of the DAA, aerlingus and various governments. Like many of our recent failures the answer does not lie in using the nuclear option on the floor staff.

Next to the chopping block will be thousands of lower paid banks workers. Followed by enforced redundancies across the PS. No manager, spin doctor, part time director, minister or hobby tsar will be sacked with two weeks redundancy over their failures. Some of them should be turfed out of their first class seats half way across the atlantic on march 16th if we really are "sharing the pain" fairly.

If there was justice the wider management of the banks would be offered the same deal as the staff in aer lingus. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Xray
11-03-2010, 09:42 PM
http://www.entemp.ie/publications/employment/2004/unfairdismissals_booklet.pdf

section 19(f) is interesting.


"A redundancy situation arises where an employee’s job ceases to exist and the employee is not replaced"

http://www.diarmaidfalvey.ie/content/Redundancy+-+Rights+and+Obligations



seems pretty clear to me

johnfás
11-03-2010, 09:43 PM
As I said - these will be "new" jobs. Most likely, legally, in another company.

Xray
11-03-2010, 09:47 PM
As I said - these will be "new" jobs. Most likely, legally, in another company.

Nonsense, that should be tested in front of a judge. The redundancy laws are meaningless if this stands. As is the unfair dismissal laws. They are clearly being sacked for voting against what the company wanted, that is not allowed.

Lifeisagame
11-03-2010, 10:07 PM
XRay
What is being said is that the section of the company will be wound up and the work outsourced.
The Law states that a company cannot make a position rredundant and then re-instateit with another worker within 6 months.
They are not doing that, they are simply outsourcing. Therefore the original company is not creating the job again.
The fundamental part of Redundancy is clear in Legislation, People are not made Redundant, jobs are. Laying off staff is a byproduct of that.

C. Flower
11-03-2010, 10:13 PM
Are they going to shut Aer Lingus down for 6 months then ?

ZANU-FF
11-03-2010, 10:35 PM
Are they going to shut Aer Lingus down for 6 months then ?

They wont have to, wait till you see, the workers will be scrapping to get the new contracts...

The contracts will be in place prior to workers actually receiving their redundancy.

johnfás
11-03-2010, 10:59 PM
An appeal would be under the The Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act 2007.

The Act provides for the establishment of a Redundancy Panel on the petition of either an employee or employer during the consultation period prior to redundancy if their is a belief that the redundancies constitution exceptional collective redundancies for the purposes of the Act.

An exceptional collective redundancy is one which shall not be deemed a redundancy, by virtue of the the dismissed employees being replaced by new workers doing the same job and performing the same tasks for lower wages.


16.—Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 is amended
by inserting the following after subsection (2):
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who
is dismissed shall be taken not to be dismissed by reason of
redundancy if—
(a) the dismissal is one of a number of dismissals that,
together, constitute collective redundancies as
defined in section 6 of the Protection of Employment
Act 1977,
(b) the dismissals concerned were effected on a compulsory
basis,
(c) the dismissed employees were, or are to be, replaced,
at the same location or elsewhere in the State,
(except where the employer has an existing operation
with established terms and conditions) by—
(i) other persons who are, or are to be, directly
employed by the employer, or
(ii) other persons whose services are, or are to be,
provided to that employer in pursuance of
other arrangements,
(d) those other persons perform, or are to perform, essentially
the same functions as the dismissed
employees, and
(e) the terms and conditions of employment of those
other persons are, or are to be, materially inferior to
those of the dismissed employees.”.

Following a report by the Redundancy Panel the Minister for Enterprise may refer the matter to the Labour Court who will decide whether or not the redundancies constitute exceptional collective redundancies for the purposes of the Act. If it is decided that they do constitute such redundancies they will not be considered redundancies and the Minister may refuse to refund the statutory redundancy rebate to the employer on termination of the employees. Under the Act, if following such a decision from the Labour Court, the employer proceeds to effect redundancies, such employees dismissed under an exceptional collective redundancy may have recourse to an action for unfair dismissal. In such circumstances an employee may be entitled to compensation not exceeding five years pay.

However, it is vitally important to understand some issues.

First, the Act was implemented by the Social Partners as a reaction to the Irish Ferries dispute. Such reactionary legislation tends to be very poorly drafted. There are plenty of arguments against such drafting.

Therefore, the Act only speaks of the re-employment of other persons on lesser terms. That is persons other than those made redundant. As such a determination would be required from court as to whether the re-employment of the same workers falls within the ambit of the legislation. Given the explicit nature of the wording in the Act this would be a task for the employees.

Finally, while the Act provides for instances where

(c) the dismissed employees were, or are to be, replaced,
at the same location or elsewhere in the State,
(except where the employer has an existing operation
with established terms and conditions) by—
(i) other persons who are, or are to be, directly
employed by the employer, or
(ii) other persons whose services are, or are to be,
provided to that employer in pursuance of
other arrangements,
(d) those other persons perform, or are to perform, essentially
the same functions as the dismissed
employees, and
(e) the terms and conditions of employment of those
other persons are, or are to be, materially inferior to
those of the dismissed employees.”.

it also provides,


(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that this Part does
not apply to—
(a) the employment of agency workers for temporary or
recurring business needs, or
(b) the use of outsourcing, contracting-out or other forms of
business restructuring,
in circumstances other than those referred to in section 7(2A) of the
Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

There is a huge issue of legislative construction there which would have to be tackled by the courts. Essentially, a company is exempt from this legislation where it is engaging in outsourcing unless the other replacing employees are to be replaced by other persons, who will perform essentially the same functions and their terms and conditions will be materially inferior.

The questions which would then have to be addressed:

- Is this outsourcing?
a) If yes, then prima facie it falls outside of the Act
b) However, if they are to be replaced by other persons who will be engaged in essentially the same work on lesser conditions then it will fall under the Act.
- What constitutes "essentially the same"?
- What is the definition of "other" persons?
a) Does the re-employment of the same people constitute the hiring of "other" persons for the purposes of the Act.
b) Under an interpretation of the plain meaning of the Act it would not. However, if applying the spirit of the law it may.
c) If the definition did include re-employment of the same workers they may be able to claim for unfair dismissal as outlined above.
- Does the employer have an existing operation with established terms and conditions?
a) If so, and the rehiring is taking place under this operation then the Act will not apply.

The Act is a mine field, poorly drafted and difficult to apply. It is unnecessarily complicated.

However, what can we expect to happen? Lengthy court delays, that's what.

Xray
11-03-2010, 11:53 PM
the law either protects people or they will protect themselves.
no contact is worth a fig if this proceeds.

C. Flower
11-03-2010, 11:57 PM
These things have always been fought over, in the workplaces and in the courts.
The fact that the company is in a poor economic position doesn't make it easy.

Cross support between the Unions is essential if this group is not to be picked off.

Xray
12-03-2010, 12:38 AM
you only need one union to stop a plane taking off.

ang
19-03-2010, 09:03 PM
Latest update on this:-


Aer Lingus cabin crew are to hold a second ballot on the €97m Greenfield cost reduction programme which they rejected two weeks ago by two to one.

The decision came after the Labour Relations Commission met management and union representatives separately.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0319/aerlingus.html

Xray
19-03-2010, 10:02 PM
Well if we all ignore what happens in aer lingus, then we are next.

If a large employer that is part state owned can just sack all of its staff and rehire them, then we have not employment protection laws at all. We are back to the 1960s in one step.
Beware.
Pensions are next on the hit list.

C. Flower
26-03-2010, 07:42 PM
Aer Lingus Cabin Crews have voted to settle.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eyojkfojgboj/

Lifeisagame
26-03-2010, 11:12 PM
Sorry folks the show is over, if you are going to do something at least realise the potential consequenses.
The new result was 92% for 8% against. Rather embarassing in anyones eyes.
They are now a broken, spent force that will be the laughing stock of the Airline Industry. Furthermore they now gave ALL power to management.
Stupid Stupid people and badly guided.
Shame really