Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A general operative

A poultry producer

Representatives

SIPTU

Peninsula Business Group Limited

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00032139-001

12/11/2019

The worker is a general operative in a poultry producer. He started in the role in 2006 and remains an employee. He is paid €13.75 per hour and this dispute relates to an enhanced payment of €63 per week he received up to the 1st July 2019, which then ceased.

The worker outlined that his employment with the employer commenced in 2006 and was ongoing. Until June 2019, he worked on the hanging line, a role that attracted an enhanced payment. He acknowledged that he had been spoken to about empty shackles on the line. He was then moved with immediate effect and submitted a grievance to challenge this. There were no previous issues regarding his performance, and he had met his targets for many years. He met with the employer but had not been allowed back on the line. He had not been given the opportunity to explain himself and was never offered training. Being taken off the line had emotional and financial consequences for him. The weekly shortfall was €63.

The worker outlined that prior to this, he had raised collective issues with the employer in his role as shop steward. These issues related to the speed of the line.

The worker said that he did not have a contract of employment. He was not aware of any performance improvement policy. He outlined that he had no recollection of the veterinary inspector raising any issue. He commented that they were ‘suited and booted’ on the line so he could not have been singled out. He had not seen any report from the Department of Agriculture.

The worker acknowledged that there may be a training issue in handling heavy animals who were injured. He said that he had been doing this role for so long without issue and now there was an issue. In response to the employer’s submission, the worker said that he was only every spoken to by one named manager and never spoke to the Department inspector. He asked to see any written report as he had incurred a severe sanction and this loss was ongoing.

The worker did not believe that the Ruffley case was relevant here, as Ruffley arose out of a disciplinary process, and there was no disciplinary aspect to this dispute.

In reply to the employer, the worker said that he had never used the gassing procedure as this was introduced after he was taken off the line. He welcomed the offer made by the employer at the hearing to offer him training. He said that they had never offered him training prior to this and did not agree with the employer’s account of this. He reiterated that he had never refused training. He accepted the training and probation in respect of the new role on the role but said that he should be given a chance.  

The employer outlined that it changed from electricity to gas stunning in November 2019. This was new technology and a better way of processing poultry. There was not much training associated with this changed process.

The employer that there had been two issues regarding the worker’s performance. The first was speed as the target was 12,200 per hour, as agreed with the union. The second issue was the worker incorrectly hanging birds.

The employer said that the worker was not victimised for being a shop steward. He was also the shop steward for several months prior to this, so this role and the performance issues were not connected. The veterinary inspector had raised the animal welfare issue and the inspector would not have known of the worker’s shop steward role. The employer referred to the Ruffley jurisprudence to highlight that performance management is part of normal management.

The manager outlined that in February 2020, he offered to the worker that he return to the line. There were now 13 on the line and they worked to the 12,200 target. He commented that the line now follows a different lay out and remains demanding. In respect of the worker’s performance, the manager said that the hanging issue would only be noticed down the line, but they could walk back down the line to see who had caused the issue. He said that the supervisor had observed the worker not hanging correctly and the veterinary inspector had identified the worker as not hanging birds correctly. He said that what the veterinary inspector had said was not recorded in writing.

The HR Manager said that the employer had twice offered retraining and the worker has said that he would not be able to keep up with the line. He was offered training on the 27th February 2020.

The employer outlined that every employee is given two weeks of training on commencing a new role. This is what would happen if the worker returned to the line and he would also be given a certificate of conformance. It proposed to introduce a structured plan to monitor performance and would give extra time if necessary.

During the hearing, the parties agreed terms for the worker to take up post on the hanging line, which attracts an enhanced payment. The worker is to complete two weeks of training, including in how to use the gassing system. He will then be given a certificate of conformance and be able to access a structured plan to monitor performance.

The outstanding issue is whether this recommendation should recommend payment of part or all of the enhanced payment not paid to the worker from July 2019 onwards. This followed the worker’s removal from the hanging line and the cessation of the enhanced payment. This is not a Payment of Wages claim, but a dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act.

I note the absence of any written report from the veterinary inspector, pointing to the worker as the definite source of her concerns. I note the handwritten (undated) minute, which cites that the veterinary inspector is reported to say that the animal welfare issue must be taken up with ‘the operators’ and not just one operator or the worker. It is not clear that the worker was singled out by the veterinary inspector as the source of her concern.

On the speed issue, I note the absence of any warning or opportunity for the worker to remedy any issue. I note he had worked on the line for many years. I note that the worker pursued an unsuccessful grievance and later lodged this dispute on the 12th November 2019. In February 2020, the employer began another grievance process to see if this matter could be resolved locally, prior to the eventual scheduling of this hearing. The worker was then offered his role back.

Taking account of these factors, I find that the recommendation should address part of the shortfall in the payment of the enhanced payment. This arises because of the absence of written confirmation that the problem identified by the veterinary inspector was definitely caused by the worker. I note the absence of a warning or monitoring in respect of the speed issue. I also note the offer made by the employer for the worker to return to the line. In these circumstances, I recommend that the employer pay to the worker €700.

CA-00032139-001

I recommend that the parties implement the agreed terms for the worker to take up post on the hanging line, a post attracting an enhanced payment. The worker is to complete two weeks of training, including in the gassing system. He will then be given a certificate of conformance and be able to access a structured plan to monitor performance.

I recommend that the employer pay €700 to the worker in respect of this dispute.

Industrial Relations Act / enhanced pay / performance