FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD GAIS EIREANN - AND - AMICUS MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Reduction of status.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in the South East region as Area Sales Manager. In September, 2001, there was a restructuring of the sales department. The Union claims that as a result of a restructuring programme entitled "Response 2000" the worker was instructed to report to a new manager who was then responsible for sales in the South East region. The Union claims that the worker has been demoted and that no reason for his demotion has been given to him. The worker has been on sick leave since. He should be restored to his previous status within the Company.
The Company rejected the Union's claim. It states that the worker has the same pay and conditions as previously and that the change in structure and reporting arrangements is necessary for the Company. The Company has in place an "Employee Assistance Programme" which the worker should avail of.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 3rd July, 2002, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th November, 2002, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was Head of Sales in the South East region. Following the reorganisation in the Company he was demoted to the role of sales co-ordinator.
2. The worker has given long and loyal service to the Company. He has been treated in an unfair and discriminatory manner by his employer without justification.
3. The claimant has been treated badly when compared to other managers who were affected by the restructuring of the sales and operation function.
4. No criticism of the worker has ever been made concerning his role as Area Sales Manager for the South East Region. This is a clear testament to his commitment and ability.
5. The worker has gone from being a respected and valued member of management staff to no-mans land, which has caused him a significant amount of stress and ill health as a result of this vindictive move.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is committed to sound industrial relations procedures with regard to changes in operating practices and procedures. It has continually met with MSF and has attended at the Labour Relations Commission when invited.
2. The Unions recognise and agree that it is the responsibility of management to plan, organise and manage the operation of the company in order to achieve and maintain maximum efficiency.
3. The claimant is the only manager who has refused to accept the changes in relation to the reorganisation which has taken place within the company.
4. The worker was not demoted. He still maintains the same pay and conditions as he had previously.
5. The management now considers that the claimant is in breach of his contract of employment with the Company as he has been unavailable for work since the 13th September, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission of both sides. A manager in the South East Region claims to have had his status in the Company reduced as a result of the implementation of a restructuring programme within the Company called Response 2000.
The Company indicated that this restructuring entailed a change to the structure of the sales department, resulting in a change in reporting mechanism for the claimant. However, the Company were adamant that there was no change envisaged to the claimant's role and duties. Neither was there any change to his terms and conditions of employment or to his salary (other than increases in pay granted as a result of the implementation of Response 2000 agreement.) Since the change in reporting structure was notified to the claimant in September 2001, he has been out ill.
The Court is of the view that a misunderstanding has arisen between the parties concerning the claimant's job title and duties held prior to September 2001. The Company indicated that his position under Response 2000 is as Area Residential Sales Manager reporting to the Area Sales Manager and it gave assurances to the Court that no demotion has occurred, and that his duties and responsibilities under the new regime are fundamentally the same as those held prior to September, 2001.
Under these circumstances the Court accepts that the Company's change in reporting structure does not amount to a demotion of the employee involved. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claimant should accept the assurances given, and every effort should be made to assist the claimant to return to work at the earliest possible opportunity.
In order to assist his return to work, the Court recommends that with the assistance of the expertise available under the Company's EAP programme, matters of concern to both parties should be resolved without delay, e.g. clarification of duties and responsibilities on return to work.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st January, 2003______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.