FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : P & G MANUFACTURING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-094401-ir-10/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. P&G Manufacturing Ireland Ltd (formerly Braun Oral-B Ireland Ltd) has been operating in Newbridge since 1984. The site currently manufactures manual toothbrushes, dental floss, power oral care refills and ethanol cartridges for the Braun Shaver cleaning system and employs 470 people. In August of 2010 the Braun plant in Carlow Town closed and the Newbridge site was successful in attracting a number of the production lines, therefore, securing employment for over 100 Braun employees. The Newbridge plant runs 24/7 and supplies products worldwide.
The Worker is employed in the manufacturing area since April 2001. He alleges that on 20th August 2008 he was unfairly treated by Company Management regarding quality control issues and that this was contrary to the Industrial Relations Acts 1969-1990.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th January, 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"The employer issued two recommendations that should be followed in discussions with employees. The recommendations are:1. Conversations on performance related issues should be done on a one-to-one basis. If two managers wish to address a person, they should invite the individual to bring someone with them - not necessarily a Union rep, for support. 2. Where reasonably possible, managers should try to ensure that such conversations are held at similar locations. While some people are happy to discuss issues away from noisy production environments, some are not - managers should establish the preference of the individual.
Based on the evidence presented by both parties at the hearing, I recommend that the employer abide by these two recommendations in any future discussions with employees".
On the 21st February, 2011, the Worker 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 30th June, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker raised a legitimate grievance when he was spoken to by Management in an unacceptable manner and threatened with disciplinary action.
2. The Company's dignity at work policy should be updated and staff involved in its application be retrained.
3. The Worked should be awarded an appropriate sum in compensation due to him feeling intimidated and believing that his job was being threatened.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A quality issue arose on two specific shifts resulting in €33,000 in waste and all six Workers were spoken to in an informal manner. It was explained that improvements were required and if someone was found to be negligent then disciplinary action would be taken. One Worker issued a letter of complaint in which he stated that he felt bullied.
2. The Company has issued proposals which will help avoid a similar situation arising in the future. These proposals have been implemented locally and should be accepted as a final resolution to this matter.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties the Court finds that the complaints raised by the Union have been addressed by the changes to the procedures recommended by the Rights Commissioner and introduced by the Company. The Court is of the view that the matter should now be settled on that basis.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation. The appeal is rejected.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th July, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.