Labour Court
The Government should consider extending the powers of the Labour Court in disputes which seriously affect the public interest, and where one or other party refuses to avail of the State's industrial relations machinery.
The inquiry team suggests the court should be enabled to establish a "cooling-off period" on both sides, during which it could impose temporary terms and conditions of employment. This would create "an opportunity" in which the antagonists could work out a settlement on their own, or with the assistance of a third party if they desired.
The court should use its existing powers under Section 21(1) of the Industrial Relations Act to summon witnesses, examine them under oath and require them to produce documentation, if they refuse to co-operate voluntarily.
Aer Rianta
and Emergency Services at Dublin Airport
The team found a "negative attitude" to Aer Rianta's performance. "In the opinion of airport users Aer Rianta did not have effective arrangements in place to maintain a safe and secure environment for passengers, airport operators and their staff during the weekend of the dispute. Most airport-based companies were especially critical of airport police, who are employees of Aer Rianta and members of SIPTU", for joining the strikers.
Aer Rianta "urgently needs an effective contingency plan to deal with this type of situation". The team urges the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke, to review procedures with Aer Rianta and "all relevant parties" by December 31st, 1998.
The team found SIPTU and Ryanair management must bear primary responsibility for the "chaos and eventual closure of Dublin Airport on March 7th8th". Their "intransigence" led to a situation which brought hardship and inconvenience to 20,000 passengers.
Ryanair
Ryanair had contributed to the airport crisis by refusing to make a meaningful effort to resolve the dispute with the SIPTU baggage handlers at an early stage; by refusing to participate in the Labour Court inquiry; and by rejecting Government invitations to co-operate with an independent inquiry into the dispute before the airport's closure. Ryanair believed the protest would be short-lived and would collapse if there was no outside intervention, the team says.
The report states that recognising trade unions would not undermine Ryanair's viability. Its policy of refusing to recognise small groups or individuals "does not mean the problem has gone away". The company should use its review of personnel policy to allow at least limited recognition. The firm should "re-examine and clarify its policy and attitudes" towards the Labour Court and Labour Relations Commission. Its "aversion" to third party intervention was not conducive to industrial harmony.
SIPTU
SIPTU had "inexplicably" failed to bring its vast knowledge and experience of industrial relations and collective bargaining to bear in the crisis at Dublin Airport. It had allowed major disruption to occur over an industrial dispute involving relatively few Ryanair employees, some of whom were on probation. It "created confusion and uncertainty, deliberately or otherwise, among its members on the reasons and purpose of the strike; failed to consult or communicate effectively with its members in Ryanair and, by its statements, left itself open to allegations that it had a wider agenda".
The team rejected SIPTU's claims that the sympathetic industrial action was spontaneous. It was "instigated and encouraged by SIPTU activists in airport-based companies. Such action cannot be condoned".
The report accepted that many airport workers were concerned about their own working conditions and employment being undermined in the long term by Ryanair's refusal to recognise unions. Given the "abrasive" attitude of Ryanair towards other airport agencies - and a belief that Ryanair workers were being denied basic trade union rights - the inquiry team said SIPTU members at the airport "required little encouragement" to take the action they did.