FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOXMORE PLASTICS LTD (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Staff mobility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by the Worker that he was redeployed to another workstationin early 2017 on a temporary basis for training purposes only but that he remains in the relocated position.
The Employer said it has a Works Agreement in place which allows it to relocate workers to different workstations.
On the 8 August 2017, the Union on behalf of the Worker, referred this dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24 October 2017.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was requested by Management to move for the purposes of training. He obliged but has since become aware that other employees with lesser service were not being moved.
2. Redundancies were selected on a last-in first-out basis but the seniority process for moving workstations was not afforded to the Worker.
3. The Worker believes that he was treated unfairly in this matter because at no stage through this procedure has the Company been willing to inform him of the selection criteria that were utilised.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The loss of a major customer meant that several machines were no longer required for production which previously had run on a 24-hour basis.
2. Due to a number of redundancies it was necessary to move people around to cover machines where employees had left the business.
3. The Works Agreement allows the Company to plan, organise and manage its operations and to schedule and assign work to specific employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
This dispute arises from the Respondent Employer’s decision to relocate the Worker from one workstation to another in its manufacturing facility following the redundancy of a number of fellow workers. Although the Worker was initially told by management in early 2017 that his transfer would be temporary and was for training purposes only, he remains in the relocated position as of the date of this hearing. The relocation has had no impact on the Worker’s earnings or other terms and conditions of employment. The Worker invoked all stages of the Company’s Grievance Procedure following his redeployment, however, his grievance was not upheld.
The Worker and his Union have sought an explanation from the Company as to why he was selected for redeployment from the position he had worked in for some nine years. The Company relies on a flexibility clause in its Works Agreement to justify its decision to relocate the Worker and takes the view that it is under no obligation to inform either the Worker or his Union of the specific criteria it applied in selecting him over other colleagues for redeployment.
Clause 6 of the Works Agreement is entitled ‘Rights and Responsibilities’ and provides as follows:
- “(a) The union agrees that the company has the exclusive right and sole responsibilities (sic) to plan, organise and manage its operations to achieve and maintain maximum efficiency.
The union further agrees that the company has the sole and exclusive right to select, employ, promote, discipline or discharge for cause, to manage the business and to direct employees.
This includes the right to plan, direct, schedule and control all operations, to schedule and assign work to specific employees, to decide working hours and shift schedules, to determine the means, methods and processes of production and to introduce new methods, equipment, facilities or products and to create, eliminate jobs or job classification, determine qualifications and requirements for all jobs covered by this Agreement and to adjust employees numbers as required and decide on manning levels. All other rights not specifically restricted elsewhere or otherwise by the Agreement shall continue to be vested in the company.
(b) In exercising its rights the Company will have full regard for established industrial relations practice and in particular will consult with the Union concerning any proposed change in a manner appropriate to the extent of the change involved.
(c) The Union will not be precluded by anything in this Clause from making representation to the Company when it considers these to be warranted.”
This dispute, at its core, concerns the interpretation of Clause 6 of the Works Agreement, quoted above. The Court notes the emphasis placed by the Company in its written and oral submissions on the degree of flexibility and discretion afforded to it to move employees, from time to time, within the plant in order to best meet its business requirements and needs. However, it is an established principle of good industrial relations practice that, when exercising any clause in the nature of Clause 6, an employer must not only do so reasonably but must be also be seen to be reasonable in the manner in which it does so. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company should inform the Worker and his Union as to why he was selected for redeployment and the likely duration of the period of his redeployment. If the circumstances of the Worker’s redeployment change, he should likewise be informed of any such change in a timely manner.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
6th November, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.