FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - BORD NA MONA GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged breach of agreement resulting in loss of earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions for a compensatory payment on behalf of 34 members employed across a number of Autonomous Horticulture Peat Bogs under the control of Bord Na Mona. In September, 2009 Management took the decision to cease peat production in a number of bogs due to adverse weather conditions and concerns over the quality of the peat. The Unions sought a meeting with Management to discuss this unilateral decision which was taken without consultation with its members. It is the Unions argument that Management ignored agreements regarding the autonomous arrangements for peat production between the parties and unnecessarily ceased production. It is Management's position that they were justified in taking the decision to cease production in order to satisfy customers and sustain business.
The issue could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 24th March, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th July, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 A framework agreement which has operated for many years governs the operation of the Autonomous Enterprise Units. The unilateral decision by Management is not in keeping with the agreement and has unnecessarily impeded the workers opportunity to earn one weeks income in 2009 while other employees remained unaffected.
2 The agreement also states that the Autonomous Enterprise Units will have total responsibility and authority for operation within their designated area.
3 If Management wish to remove the autonomy of our team leaders, which has been in place for many years under productive agreements, it will lead to chaos from an Industrial Relations and peat production point of view.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Management took the step of ceasing peat production for very valid reasons as customers expressed serious concern regarding the quality of the peat being sold. Management cannot ignore the concerns of customers.
2 The Team Leaders do not have the overall information necessary to make the decision whether to call off production or not.
3 Many times down through the years production was called off due to the level of stocks on all bogs, due to sales or the requirement to cover and save the stock we have.
RECOMMENDATION:
While issues in relation to the interpretation of a collective agreement between the parties have been raised in this case the terms of that agreement are so uncertain as to be of little assistance in resolving the current dispute.
It is clear however, that the ultimate responsibility for the management of the bogs must rest with management and that includes the authority to start and finish production. However, decisions of that nature should be taken in close consultation with the autonomous work groups.
Having regard to the adverse conditions which existed in 2009, and their impact on the earnings of the work units, the management should have engaged in a reasonable level of consultation before deciding to close down production. The Court believes that some loss accrued to the workers in question in consequences of that failure to consult.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that compensation be paid in the amount of €350 to each general operative affected and €1,300 to each team leader affected.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th August, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.