FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MS ROSEMARY MALLON B.L; AS INSTRUCTED BY MS ELAINE METTLER, AER LINGUS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MS CATHY MC GRADY B.L; AS INSTRUCTED BY DANIEL SPRING & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No ADJ-00006807.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th November, 2018.
The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This is an appeal by an employee against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00006807 CA-00009071-002, 003 in a claim against her employer under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Claimant objected to her removal from her role within the Catering Department as Manager In Flight Sales in August 2013 and disputed the Company’s contention that it was for redundancy reasons. She contended that her employer had acted in breach of her rights and entitlements and its own policies and procedures. She maintained that it had repeatedly failed to properly address her grievances and had failed to redeploy her into a suitable alternative role. She said that in effect she was left “in limbo” and her terms and conditions were continually undermined which had caused her great distress. She sought to be restored to her original role.
The Claimant stated that on 23rd July 2013 while she was on holidays in Portugal she was informed of the impending Catering reorganisation which would result in her role being made redundant. The Claimant said that the news came out of the blue, without notice or consultation. At the time she said that she was unaware that a review had been carried out into the operations of the Catering Department. She said that when she enquired as to the reasons for the restructure she was redirected to the HR Department.
At a meeting on 31stJuly 2013, attended by the HR Business Partner and the Director of Change and Engagement the rationale for the restructuring was explained to her and she was informed that there was no longer a role for her in the Catering Department. By letter dated 2ndAugust 2013, she was formally informed that her role would ceased with effect from 7thAugust 2013.
The Claimant disputed the rationale for the elimination of her role, she proceeded to raise a formal grievance with management and sought restoration to her managerial role in the Catering Department. She invoked a number of stages of the grievance procedure. The outcome of her grievance held that the Company was entitled to restructure the Catering Department in 2013. However, they held that the consultation and communication processes were inadequate and, in that regard, held that there were shortcomings in the Company’s approach, however it held that these shortcomings did not warrant the redress sought by her.
In September 2013, the Claimant was placed in an alternative role as Administrative Assistant in the Training Academy on a temporary basis. That role continued into 2016. In 2015 her colleague went on maternity leave and the Claimant willingly took over her duties along with her own. In November 2016 she was informed that her temporary role was at risk of redundancy as her colleague was returning from maternity leave and there was no longer a role for her in the Training Academy. The Claimant raised an objection and informed management that she had been in her role on a temporary basis for over three and a half years, having been placed there from the Resource Pool. On 22ndDecember 2016, her position in the latter role was confirmed as permanent.
Management disputed the Claimant’s contentions and stated that in 2013 it carried out a review of its Catering Department operations and decided to restructure the Department’s activities into two business units with their own separate management, a Flight Kitchen and a Supply Chain function which was to be subsumed within the Strategic Sourcing Department under a new Corporate Supply Chain Director. Arising from this the Claimant’s management role was no longer required and was made redundant.
As the Claimant’s role no longer existed, she was given the option to take a voluntary severance package or opt to be placed in the Resource Pool, which was designed to support employees who were displaced due to business change or restructuring with continuing employment and redeployment opportunities. Management stated that the Resource Pool provided an intensified search for an alternative permanent role, interim project work/placements, training and upskilling courses and the support. It also provided the Claimant with a red circling of her remuneration and terms and conditions of employment.
On 17thNovember 2016 when the Claimant was informed that she was to be placed back in the Resource Pool as her colleague was returning from maternity leave, she raised an objection to the removal of her role. Management accepted that there was a misunderstanding of her position at the time. It did not appreciate that she had been in the Training Academy on a temporary basis for three and a half years at that that stage. Therefore, it decided to regularise her position and with effect from 22ndDecember 2016 her position was made permanent.
The Court notes that the Claimant is no longer temporary, she is no longer in the Resource Pool, her remuneration, all terms and conditions of employment have been preserved and were such throughout this entire period. However, her title and duties have changed, and she no longer holds the title “Manager”.
Having considered the oral and written submissions, the Court notes that the Claimant does not dispute the Company’s right to restructure its business. It also notes that an agreement was reached in 2010 with the Unions which signalled that restructuring of Head Office and support operations would take place. At paragraph 4.1 of the agreement it states as follows: -
- “The parties agree that the Company may conduct root and branch analyses of all business processes, procedures, delivery models, technology/systems solutions and investment, costs, productivity, organisation design, organisation structure, grading and all aspects of support operations, without exception.”
This agreement providedinter alia, for a voluntary severance package.
The Court accepts that the Company had the right to restructure its Catering Department and accepts that a common feature of such situations is the elimination of certain roles. This was what happened in her case and unfortunately it had serious consequences for the Claimant as a result. However, in an effort to preserve employment the Company provided her with the option to be placed in the Resource Pool in lieu of availing of a voluntary severance package.
The Court notes that the Claimant chose not to avail of the voluntary severance package, therefore, she was placed in the Resource Pool from which she was assigned to an alternative role. It is not in dispute that arising from the elimination of her role in the Catering Department there were no adverse effect on her remuneration or her terms and conditions of employment. However, it did have an adverse effect on her job title and duties as she lost her managerial status and this impacted her both personally and professionally. Management informed the Court that should the Claimant wish to avail of the voluntary severance package, that option remains open to her.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed in 2013, however, the Court concurs with the findings of the grievance processes which held that the notification and consultation process was wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory in the circumstances and that this had led to great distress for the Claimant and in those circumstances the Court recommends that the Company should pay the Claimant the sum of €7,000 in compensation for the distress caused.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Company should make every effort to address the Claimant’s concerns over her job title.
Therefore, the Court upholds the appeal in part and varies the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th December 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.