Labour Relations Commission Chief Executive Kieran Mulvey has said the Croke Park Agreement may have to be revisited.

Speaking on RTÉ's Saturday with Claire Byrne, Mr Mulvey said that does not necessarily mean that Croke Park would not last until June 2014.

However, the initiative by the Government in the recent month and the response of the unions probably indicates that the agreement will be revisited.

He said there will be no Croke Park two but expects it to be revitalised to maybe transform it into a more deliberate agreement over the next year.

Mr Mulvey said other governments such as Greece, Spain and Portugal would love to have a Croke Park agreement because the State has engaged with its own employees not only on pay and cost issues but the need to change to meet the new demands of the modern world.

He said Croke Park is a reform programme, to turn the engine of State around to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Aer Lingus dispute extremely complex - Mulvey

Mr Mulvey also commented on the Aer Lingus pension dispute, saying it is the most complex he has ever been involved in.

He said there is an unbridgeable gap between the parties involved in the dispute over a €750m deficit in a pension scheme at Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority.

He added Aer Lingus was unwilling to refer the matter to the Labour Court for a number of reasons and on that basis the talks were suspended indefinitely on Thursday.

Mr Mulvey said the prospect of industrial action, particularly at Aer Lingus, is shaping up at the moment but that a lot of water will flow under the bridge before that actually happens.

He said the dispute has to be resolved around the negotiating table and the fact that the parties walked away on Thursday did not mean the end.

The LRC chief also said there are differing opinions about whether a deal was concluded between the DAA and unions and he will have to call the parties back maybe next week to establish that.

Mr Mulvey said the real issue is that staff in Aer Lingus and the DAA have over many years been contributing to a scheme with benefits that would not match the contribution – 11% benefit.

He said there was a clear lack of foresight to fund the potential benefits that people had a strong, moral and reasonable expectation of and remedial action should have been taken years ago.