FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - AND - THREE WORKERS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR19969/04/DI, IR19970/04/DI, IR19971/04/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. Irish Biscuits Limited is engaged in biscuit manufacture at its plant in Belgard Road, Tallaght, employing in excess of 400 people. In January 2003 the Company and the Union entered into a Restructuring Programme known as 'Project Concerto'. The project which was implemented by the Company involved voluntary severance and "re-manning" those aspects of the business that would be remaining. One of the areas impacted was the Sollich Plant where the three claimants ( herein referred to as the workers) worked as " Hopper" staff. The staffing level changed from 6 people to 3 people, depending on the product being manufactured. When this happens the "residual" employees are reassigned to the packing line within the same plant. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the workers that prior to any vote taking place regarding the project, they were given assurances by local management that they would retain their positions as hopper staff in their particular area on a permanent basis. The Company contend that when the re-manning of the plant was being implemented, it emerged that, when the product being manufactured required 3 hopper staff, the 3 most senior employees would remain on the hoppers and that the 3 junior hopper employees would be reassigned to other positions in the same plant. This is in line with the Company's agreement with the Unions and with long standing custom and practice. It is acknowledged by the Company that while Local management may have conveyed, in error, a different understanding of the position to the workers, it refutes any suggestion that the workers had any guarantee to such an arrangement.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 19th November, 2004, as follows:
- “While I believe that this dispute arose due to poor communication I do not see this as being an adequate reason for changing long-standing seniority arrangements. I find against the workers claim, however, I do award each of them €200 as compensation for any disturbance caused to them as a result of the communication difficulties experienced.”
- The workers were named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 20th December, 2004, the workers appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd March, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
- “While I believe that this dispute arose due to poor communication I do not see this as being an adequate reason for changing long-standing seniority arrangements. I find against the workers claim, however, I do award each of them €200 as compensation for any disturbance caused to them as a result of the communication difficulties experienced.”
3. 1. The workers contend that their co-operation was solicited to ensure the smooth passage of the restructuring package on the basis that their positions would not change. The workers agreed to this support, and without any warning, their positions did change. It is a well established Common Law implied duty of the employer to maintain the trust and confidence of employees. In this instance the employer abused the trust and confidence of the 3 workers.
2. There is one particular incidence where one employee was given the same reassurances mentioned in relation to his job in advance of the Concerto deal and who was facilitated. In relation to the Concerto deal, the workers contend that for them to be bound to the agreement and its effects on their jobs, implies a degree of acquiescence to such an agreement and its effect. The workers have demonstrated in repeatedly seeking reassurances and in repeatedly being given reassurances, that no such acquiescence was intended to exist. By deduction, through their coercion into accepting the Concerto deal, they were entirely misled to its effects.
3. The employer in this case had demonstrated no adherence to fair procedures in its displacement of the workers from their well established positions. The attempt by the Company to undermine the position of the workers in such a way, particularly in the light of the reassurances given on several occasions by management, represents the abuse and non existence of fair procedure in this matter.The undoing of such an error is not by way of payment of compensation, rather the reinstatement of the workers to their previous seniority level on the machine in their particular work area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company and Unions are clear that long standing seniority arrangements should apply in circumstances where staff allocation issues arise. This position has now been endorsed by the recommendations of the Rights Commissioners.
2. The Company acknowledges that the Factory Manager made an honest error in giving the 3 workers to understand that they would be retained on the hoppers in all circumstances. However, it is the position of the Company and the Unions at the Company that agreements entered into between the parties, together with custom and practice must override any informal communications by an individual Manager.
3. The Company acknowledges the right of any employee to pursue a perceived grievance, the recommendation of the Rights Commissioners cannot be ignored and that the award from the Rights Commissioners hearing is more than adequate compensation for the so called disturbance to the 3 workers.
DECISION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court upholds the Company's right to apply, where necessary, long standing seniority arrangements and consequently does not concede the claim for reinstatement of the three appellants to their original positions in the 'Sollich' plant. However, it is accepted that prior to the remanning on the 'Sollich' plant that assurances were given to the claimants that they would retain their positions as hopper staff on a permanent basis. The Company indicated to the Court that this was an 'honest error'. In view of these misleading statements the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners decision to compensate the workers and upholds the recommended award of €200 in full and final settlement of this issue.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners recommendation. The appeal fails. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th April 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.