FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appointment of a Manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. A serious incident occurred at the Coolock-based plant in 2004 when a Manager from the HR Department made a serious error of judgement resulting in his immediate removal from his position and an undertaking by the Company that he would not be involved with Workers on the factory floor thus preventing a threatened full-scale stoppage. However in June 2007 the Management informed the Unions that this same individual would shortly be appointed as a Production Plant Manager. The Unions claim that this was a breach of the agreement reached three years earlier.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th September, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A verbal undertaking was given in 2004 that the Manager in question would not be returned to a position where he would have to interact with the Unions' Members.
2. The Unions accept that they have no right to interfere in Management decisions but they do expect that existing commitments will be honoured.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An arrangement was undertaken at that time but it was the Company's understanding that it would not be of infinite duration.
2. The Company agrees that a serious incident did occur, but after such a lengthy passage of time, natural justice would dictate that the individual has been punished enough and now he should not be prevented from moving on with his career in management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties should review the disciplinary procedures currently in place within the Company. This review should have full regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No.146 of 2000) and in particular the requirement of Clause 14 of the Code which provides:-
- "Warnings should be removed from an employee's record after a specified period and the employee advised accordingly."
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th October, 2007______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.