Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 125: To ask the Minister for Transport if he will report on the recent resolution of the air traffic controllers' dispute at Dublin Airport which caused the closure of Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports for more than four hours in January 2010; if all the outstanding industrial relations issues between the air traffic controllers, their representatives and Irish Aviation Authority management are in an industrial relations process or have been settled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6424/10]

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The immediate cause of the Air Traffic Controller dispute at Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports was a withdrawal by IMPACT of co-operation with new technology projects since 1 January 2010 and the suspension of 14 Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) as a result. Around 110 inbound and outbound flights at the three State airports were cancelled on 20 January as a result of the industrial action and around 20,000 air passengers were affected. In these circumstances, I am very disappointed that industrial action occurred before the Labour Court had an opportunity to consider the matter. I am also very concerned about the serious consequences of industrial action for air passengers and the economy.

I understand that the core issues of this dispute were non-payment of increases under T2016 and the possible introduction of an employee contribution to the IAA superannuation scheme. Following consultation with the ICTU and IBEC, the Labour Court invited the IAA and IMPACT to preliminary talks on Friday 22 January aimed at devising a framework for resolving the issues in dispute between ATCs and the Authority. Both parties accepted the invitation and, following the talks, IMPACT agreed to a full resumption of normal working with immediate effect and to no industrial action of any kind. It also withdrew its objection, at the Labour Court's request, to ATCs undertaking project work. The 14 suspended employees were returned to the payroll that same evening.

Both sides also agreed to attend a further Labour Court hearing on 26 January to address (i) the issue of co-operation with ongoing technological change, and (ii) the pay and pension issues. In the case of the former, the IAA and IMPACT agreed that the court would investigate the immediate issue of the classification of work under section 20 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and that they would accept its decision in the matter as final and binding. The Labour Court issued its recommendations on 27 January and found in favour of the IAA in respect of all four technology projects concluding that the changes associated with the disputed projects did not go beyond the parameters of what can be properly classified as "normal on-going change".

On the issue of pay and pensions, the Labour Court issued its non-binding recommendations on 5 February and recommended the following: · The first phase of 3.5% would be paid with effect from 1 January 2011 with retrospection to 1 January 2009; · The second phase of 2.5% would be paid with effect from 1 July 2011 with retrospection to 31 December 2009; · Retrospection would be paid into the IAA's pension fund as a once-off cash injection having regard to the current deficit in the pension scheme

The court urged the parties to accept the recommendations on condition that:

· The Unions and their members commit to full co-operation with normal ongoing change, adaptation and flexibility; and

· The parties undertake to engage in an intensive process aimed at addressing the current difficulties in the Authority's pension scheme and that this process should take place over a period not exceeding three months.

I would urge both parties to carefully consider the Labour Court's recommendations and to engage constructively as regards their implementation.