# Aer Lingus dumping of cabin crew . . is it legal?



## michaelm (10 Mar 2010)

How can Aer Lingus avoid loosing unfair dismissal claims when it is simply going to sack all cabin crew, only to go and hire replacements?  The cabin crew positions aren't, in reality, being made redundant, the workers are simply being sacked.  Further why should the taxpayer pick-up 60% of the redundancy bill for what is not a genuine redundancy situation?  Am I missing something obvious here?


----------



## jhegarty (10 Mar 2010)

Can't imagine it's legal.


----------



## lightswitch (10 Mar 2010)

No expert but I cant see that this can be legal either..................... god help the rest of us private sector workers if it is.


----------



## Caveat (10 Mar 2010)

Another non-expert, but surely it's not that simplistic?

What if, for example, they were point blank refusing to do something they were contractually, even legally, obliged to do?  Don't see why you can't get rid of them and employ alternatives.  Note this was an example.


----------



## corkgal (10 Mar 2010)

I think the staff must have agreed to it in some way? And the govt.


----------



## jhegarty (10 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> Another non-expert, but surely it's not that simplistic?
> 
> What if, for example, they were point blank refusing to do something they were contractually, even legally, obliged to do?  Don't see why you can't get rid of them and employ alternatives.  Note this was an example.



That's a good old fashioned sacking. Very different to redundancy.



corkgal said:


> I think the staff must have agreed to it in some way? And the govt.



No , these are the staff that didn't agree.


----------



## haminka1 (10 Mar 2010)

sack regular staff, hire contractors on demand, no obligations, no need to pay social insurance etc. for the people, ain't that great? and they'll get changing rooms and canteen in hangar 6


----------



## Ancutza (10 Mar 2010)

As I understand it they are being made redundant, not being sacked.  As I further understand it the company is therefore, if it chooses to re-hire people to fill the now redundant posts, legally required to offer those posts to those made redundant in the first instance.  Aer Lingus intends to offer some of those made redundant a job, albeit with different contractual conditions. Nothing illegal in that as far as I can see.  Harsh perhaps but not illegal.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (10 Mar 2010)

The legal explanation of the word "redundancy" will do some cartwheels.


----------



## Ancutza (10 Mar 2010)

I have to say that I watch these situations developing with a sense of bemusement. Your employer is losing money hand over fist and decides to 'down-size' lets's say 50% to cut its losses.  So you, as an employee, are faced with either taking the package on the table and looking elsewhere or getting on to your union and, through industrial action or whatever, putting the remaining (or what would be the remaining) 50% at risk too.

The recent closure in Dundalk was a point in fact.  Can't remember the name of the company but weren't they told that if a certain percentage didn't take the package then the whole plant would close putting everyone out of a job?  They didn't and the plant closed.  Well that's a hollow victory indeed!  Nice going guys!

Thank God I work for myself (having also lost my own job last August) and am actually looking to hire a couple of people!  When I was let go it was clear that the business couldn't survive with the current staffing numbers and we all had to take what was offered (which was reasonably generous given the situation).  Instead of whinging about it and crying to the unions, who couldn't in any case run  a ****-up in a brewery, why don't people get off their arses and look elsewhere before putting their colleagues out of a job thro' their own intransigence?

Human nature, I guess, to cling grimly to what you have regardless of the consequences but it _is_ pathetic too and the only ones who gain are the union bosses who still collect their fat cheques irrespective of whether or not you have a job.


----------



## Superman (10 Mar 2010)

Ancutza said:


> The recent closure in Dundalk was a point in fact.  Can't remember the name of the company but weren't they told that if a certain percentage didn't take the package then the whole plant would close putting everyone out of a job?  They didn't and the plant closed.  Well that's a hollow victory indeed!  Nice going guys!


I believe that that particular case involved unionised and non-unionised workers. The older unionised workers (looking towards their retirement) voted against the package, the younger non-unionised voted for the package.


----------



## shanegl (10 Mar 2010)

The job is redundant, not the person. New jobs with different working conditions, pay and hours will replace them and be offered to staff. 

I don't see a problem with this. No legal background though. But I'm sure Aer Lingus have taken legal advice.


----------



## Bronte (11 Mar 2010)

shanegl said:


> The job is redundant, not the person. New jobs with different working conditions, pay and hours will replace them and be offered to staff.
> 
> .


 
I don't see this, it's the same job.  The job hasn't changed?


----------



## Green (11 Mar 2010)

michaelm said:


> How can Aer Lingus avoid loosing unfair dismissal claims when it is simply going to sack all cabin crew, only to go and hire replacements? The cabin crew positions aren't, in reality, being made redundant, the workers are simply being sacked. Further why should the taxpayer pick-up 60% of the redundancy bill for what is not a genuine redundancy situation? Am I missing something obvious here?


 
Have we not been through this type of scenario already with Irish Ferries?


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

YOBR said:


> Have we not been through this type of scenario already with Irish Ferries?


 
No. Irish Ferries re-registered their vessels in Cyprus and tried replacing their workforce with workers who would not have not been covered under Irish and EU employment legislation e.g. they could be paid less than the minimum wage.

There is nothing illegal about what Aer Lingus is doing. The company offered the staff the oppotunity to enter the new contracts voluntarily but always made it clear that they would be implemented one way or another. The workers (who to be fair have made plenty of sacrifces in the past) tried to call their bluff against their unions advice. It backfired badly on them. 

And the public sector workers thought they had it bad. There are people in Aer Lingus earning less than the lowest paid in the civil service and are taking big pay cuts as well. Thats what happens when your employer is running at a loss.


----------



## bogle (11 Mar 2010)

Sunny said:


> There are people in Aer Lingus earning less than the lowest paid in the civil service and are taking big pay cuts as well. Thats what happens when your employer is running at a loss.


 
Can you provide some referenced figures (with links) for this statement please?


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

bogle said:


> Can you provide some referenced figures (with links) for this statement please?


 
Can't link to you to Aer Lingus pay scales for obvious reasons but a clerical officer in the civil service starts at around €23,000. A cleaner gets almost €20,000. 



A family member who works for Aer lingus doing shift work (including 4am starts) just cleared €17,500 last year and is now taking another pay cut.


----------



## michaelm (11 Mar 2010)

shanegl said:


> The job is redundant, not the person. New jobs with different working conditions, pay and hours will replace them and be offered to staff.


Yes, job redundant, not the person.  You can't make a job redundant on a Monday (and ask the state to pay 60% of the costs) and then hire someone (maybe the same person) back to the same job on a Tuesday.  Even if you tweak the conditions and the job title . . cabin crew are cabin crew.  

If this is legal then all legislation protecting workers is worthless.  What then is to stop every employer in the state making all their employees redundant today and then hiring whomever they want back on worse pay and conditions, while landing the state with a redundancy bill?


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

michaelm said:


> Yes, job redundant, not the person. You can't make a job redundant on a Monday (and ask the state to pay 60% of the costs) and then hire someone (maybe the same person) back to the same job on a Tuesday. Even if you tweak the conditions and the job title . . cabin crew are cabin crew.
> 
> If this is legal then all legislation protecting workers is worthless. What then is to stop every employer in the state making all their employees redundant today and then hiring whomever they want back on worse pay and conditions, while landing the state with a redundancy bill?


 
Its not that simple

[broken link removed]

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2007/a2707.pdf


----------



## Latrade (11 Mar 2010)

michaelm said:


> If this is legal then all legislation protecting workers is worthless. What then is to stop every employer in the state making all their employees redundant today and then hiring whomever they want back on worse pay and conditions, while landing the state with a redundancy bill?


 
It is legal, or appears to be from what I can see. Obviously, such a decision would have needed Board approval from AL. And who sits on the Board of AL? David Begg.


----------



## Shawady (11 Mar 2010)

Sunny said:


> There are people in Aer Lingus earning less than the lowest paid in the civil service and are taking big pay cuts as well. Thats what happens when your employer is running at a loss.


 
Maybe, but the workers are getting a redundancy payment and then they are being taken back on on lower pay and conditions.
I worked for a company a number of years back and something similar happened. The company sold one of the production plants and the staff were made redundant but taken back on with less pay. They were given access to finiancial experts on how to use their redundancy lump sum eg. investment or paying off mortgage. This eased the financial situation for them.


----------



## michaelm (11 Mar 2010)

Sunny said:


> Its not that simple


Thanks for the links. [broken link removed] says . . 

"Under the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act 2007 (pdf) a Redundancy Panel has been set up by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in accordance with the partnership agreement _Towards 2016. _*Some collective redundancies may be referred to the Panel to determine whether the redundancies were (or are being) carried out in order to replace the employees with workers on lower pay or other less favourable terms and conditions.* These are known as exceptional collective redundancies.* If the panel decides the redundancies were carried out for this reason, the employer will not receive a rebate on the lump sum payments and the employees concerned will be able to take action for unfair dismissal.*"

So I suppose my question is, any Aer Lingus legal advice notwithstanding, how will the proposal, as reported, to terminate the employment of all cabin crew not fall foul of the Redundancy Panel, leaving Aer Lingus without a state rebate and facing valid unfair dismissal claims?


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

michaelm said:


> Thanks for the links. [broken link removed] says . .
> 
> "Under the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act 2007 (pdf) a Redundancy Panel has been set up by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in accordance with the partnership agreement _Towards 2016. _*Some collective redundancies may be referred to the Panel to determine whether the redundancies were (or are being) carried out in order to replace the employees with workers on lower pay or other less favourable terms and conditions.* These are known as exceptional collective redundancies.* If the panel decides the redundancies were carried out for this reason, the employer will not receive a rebate on the lump sum payments and the employees concerned will be able to take action for unfair dismissal.*"
> 
> So I suppose my question is, any Aer Lingus legal advice notwithstanding, how will the proposal, as reported, to terminate the employment of all cabin crew not fall foul of the Redundancy Panel, leaving Aer Lingus without a state rebate and facing valid unfair dismissal claims?


 
I think it is because they are doing it for legitimate business reasons i.e. the company is in financial trouble. The Department signed off on it as far as I know.


----------



## michaelm (11 Mar 2010)

Sunny said:


> I think it is because they are doing it for legitimate business reasons i.e. the company is in financial trouble.


By extension then, could any company that makes a loss in a given year disregard the terms & conditions of their employees with impunity? 

In the case of Aer Lingus then, would the state rebate which helps facilitate the downgrading of the terms & conditions of staff, in order to assist the company to restructure 'for business reasons', not be viewed by the EU as illegal state aid?


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

michaelm said:


> By extension then, could any company that makes a loss in a given year disregard the terms & conditions of their employees with impunity?
> 
> In the case of Aer Lingus then, would the state rebate which helps facilitate the downgrading of the terms & conditions of staff, in order to assist the company to restructure 'for business reasons', not be viewed by the EU as illegal state aid?


 
But its not just that they are making a loss. They are burning cash at a rapid rate. Remember even the trade unions recognised that these changes had to be made because of the state of the business. 

It's unlikely to be seen as illegal State Aid as it is open to every company. I have an issue with the State Rebate in general and not just in the case of Aer Lingus.


----------



## Complainer (11 Mar 2010)

Ancutza said:


> I have to say that I watch these situations developing with a sense of bemusement. Your employer is losing money hand over fist and decides to 'down-size' lets's say 50% to cut its losses.  So you, as an employee, are faced with either taking the package on the table and looking elsewhere or getting on to your union and, through industrial action or whatever, putting the remaining (or what would be the remaining) 50% at risk too.
> 
> The recent closure in Dundalk was a point in fact.  Can't remember the name of the company but weren't they told that if a certain percentage didn't take the package then the whole plant would close putting everyone out of a job?  They didn't and the plant closed.  Well that's a hollow victory indeed!  Nice going guys!
> 
> ...


Before you go moaning about the role of the unions, you might want to check out the facts about how the cabin crew's union acted on this particular issue.

Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good rant...


----------



## csirl (11 Mar 2010)

My understanding of this, based on various media reports, is that AL has 2 types of cabin crew - senior ones who are on board supervisiors and ordinary ones who report to the supervisors. AL is eliminating the senior ones entirely as they see this layer of management as being unnecessary - these are the people being laid off. And that those being laid off are being offered a choice of ordinary cabin crew jobs or redundancy. [I assume that the ordinary cabin crew will report to a smaller number of senior people who are mainly ground based rather than 1 or 2 on each plane].


----------



## michaelm (11 Mar 2010)

csirl said:


> AL is eliminating the senior ones entirely as they see this layer of management as being unnecessary - these are the people being laid off.


Maybe so.  According to RTE and the Irish Times, all cabin crew are to be made redundant.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

Every member of cabin crew is being made redundant and asked to re-apply for jobs on the lesser contract. There won't be any senior cabin crew positions.


----------



## bogle (14 Mar 2010)

Sunny said:


> Can't link to you to Aer Lingus pay scales for obvious reasons but a clerical officer in the civil service starts at around €23,000. A cleaner gets almost €20,000.
> 
> 
> 
> A family member who works for Aer lingus doing shift work (including 4am starts) just cleared €17,500 last year and is now taking another pay cut.



Sorry for the very late response. Is that figure net or gross? What's the nature of the work, hours, any benefits etc?


----------



## Ancutza (14 Mar 2010)

> Before you go moaning about the role of the unions, you might want to check out the facts about how the cabin crew's union acted on this particular issue.
> 
> Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good rant...



Couldn't be bothered my behind to research the union position on this at all.  Whilst some people are busy complaining I'm busy working my butt off to secure my family's future.  Good luck to all those that think that the union will keep them in a cushdy number!  They deserve all that awaits them!  When it ain't working then it ain't working.  What are you to do?  Phone McLoone?


----------



## Complainer (15 Mar 2010)

Ancutza said:


> Couldn't be bothered my behind to research the union position on this at all.  Whilst some people are busy complaining I'm busy working my butt off to secure my family's future.  Good luck to all those that think that the union will keep them in a cushdy number!  They deserve all that awaits them!  When it ain't working then it ain't working.  What are you to do?  Phone McLoone?


Fair enough so. Feel free to keep ranting about things that didn't actually happen. Hope you are feeling better soon.


----------



## Complainer (12 Jan 2011)

Just thought it might be interesting to revisit this issue in the light of today's news;

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0111/aerlingus.html


----------



## ashambles (13 Jan 2011)

Not quite - a SIPTU retraction was issued last night. 

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/aerlingus.html



> SIPTU has said it was wrong in confirming that Aer Lingus workers had received tax demands from the Revenue Commissioners in relation to a controversial 'leave and return' redundancy scheme.


Not to say these demands mightn't wing their way to workers, AL and the workers are on dodgy ground as SIPTU have clumsily highlighted.


----------



## michaelm (13 Jan 2011)

SIPTU should never have argued that these were genuine redundancies as that undermines the T&C of all workers.


----------

