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 DANIEL SPRING & CO SOLICITORS) (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-000006810.
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-00006810, CA-00009066-002, 003 in a claim against his employer under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Claimant objected to his removal from his role as Manager Catering Operations in August 2013 and disputed the Company’s contention that it was for redundancy reasons. He contended that his employer had acted in breach of his rights and entitlements and its own policies and procedures. He maintained that it had repeatedly failed to properly address his grievances and had failed to redeploy him into a suitable alternative role. He said that in effect he was left “in limbo” and his terms and conditions were continually undermined which had caused him great distress. He sought to be restored to his original role.
The Claimant stated that on 22ndJuly 2013 he was informed of the impending Catering reorganisation which would result in his role being made redundant. The Claimant said that this news came out of the blue, without notice or consultation. At the time he said that he was unaware that a review had been carried out into the operations of the Catering Department. He said that when he enquired as to the reasons for the restructure he 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 him and he was informed that there was no longer a role for him in the Catering Department. By letter dated 2ndAugust 2013, he was formally informed that his role would ceased with effect from 7thAugust 2013.
The Claimant disputed the rationale for the elimination of his role, he proceeded to raise a formal grievance with management and sought restoration to his managerial role in the Catering Department. He invoked a number of stages of the grievance procedure. The outcome of his 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 him.
In September 2013, the Claimant was placed in an alternative role as Cash Office Manager on a temporary basis. That role continued into 2016. In October 2016 he was informed that his temporary role was at risk of redundancy due to the introduction of new cash machines. The Claimant raised an objection and made a number of points to management about the necessity for his role to continue. On 22ndDecember 2016, his 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, he 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 his remuneration and terms and conditions of employment.
In October 2016 Management decided that due to the introduction of new cash machines in the Cash Office that his role and those who reported to him were at risk of redundancy in the following months. At the time, the Claimant raised an objection to the removal of his role and this objection coupled with arguments he made for the retention of his role resulted in not only the retention of his role but with effect from 22ndDecember 2016 his position was made permanent.
The Court notes that the Claimant is no longer temporary, he is no longer in the Resource Pool, his remuneration, all terms and conditions of employment and his status have been preserved and were such throughout this entire period.
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 this case and unfortunately it had serious consequences for the Claimant as a result. However, in an effort to preserve employment the Company provided him 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, he was placed in the Resource Pool from which he was assigned to an alternative role at Manager Level. It is not in dispute that arising from the elimination of his role in the Catering Department there were no adverse effect on his remuneration or his terms and conditions of employment. Management informed the Court that should the Claimant wish to avail of the voluntary severance package, that option remains open to him.
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.
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.