The Labour Relations Court has recommended significant changes in work practices for Aer Lingus staff to achieve cost cuts at the airline.
However, it recommends that staff should be compensated for loss of earnings or annual leave.
In a recommendation released to management and unions, LRC Chairman Kevin Duffy said he was satisfied that the current circumstances of the company warrant implementation of measures to bring about further cost savings and efficiencies.
However, he said that where loss of holidays or earnings result from the new measures, fair and reasonable compensation should be paid.
That compensation should be the subject of further negotiations to be complete within four weeks.
Michael Halpenny, SIPTU National Industrial Secretary, said the union would give the Labour Court recommendations full consideration.
He said the court was clear and unequivocal on two issues it raised, including the breach by the airline of existing agreements and the security of future agreements.
He said SIPTU's disputes committee would meet again to discuss the document.
LRC input welcomed
Aer Lingus Chief Executive Dermot Mannion welcomed the input of the LRC but added: 'Much remains to be done and management remains committed to addressing the real commercial issues that the company faces and ensuring unnecessary cost is removed from the business.'
To cut leave costs, the court is recommending that staff who currently get 26 or more days annual leave per year should relinquish two days. Staff entitled to 23, 24 or 25 days should relinquish one day.
There will also be diminution of entitlements to days off in lieu - particularly for staff with less than five years service.
The court also recommends greater flexibility in shift arrangements and the elimination of the current practice of working through breaks and finishing early.
The company will also be free to establish new foreign bases, with pay at local market rates.
Some issues will be subject to further negotiation over the next two to four weeks.
In a criticism of management, Mr Duffy said that the company's decision to depart from agreed conditions of employment without agreement was inconsistent with the spirit and the letter of existing collective agreements.
