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

[michaelm]

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]

Can't imagine it's legal.

 

[lightswitch]

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]

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]

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

 

[jhegarty]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Ancutza]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.