Employees awarded compensation for victimisation on grounds of union membership

The first major group claim of victimisation due to trade union membership, taken under the 2004 Industrial Relations Act, has resulted in a total award of up to €120,000 for 24 claimants, who were former employees of the company Green Isle Foods.

In one of the first cases of victimisation arising from engagement in trade union activity, taken under Section 8 of the 2004 Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (329Kb PDF), the former frozen foods manufacturer Green Isle Foods has been ordered by a Rights Commissioner to pay €5,000 each to 24 named members of the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Trade Union (SIPTU), amounting to a total of €120,000 in compensation.

The 2004 act protects workers against victimisation due to membership or non-membership of a trade union. Section 8 of the act has been seldom used up until now.

Background

During 2005, the Green Isle Foods company reviewed its operations and costs and concluded that the current production model of overtime and overlapping shifts, short runs and high waste was unsustainable.

In October and November 2005, the company made a presentation to employees, proposing a change from the over-reliance on overtime to a 78-hour two-shift production cycle. To bring about these changes, it was necessary for the company to engage with employees in talks on staffing levels, shift premia and other issues in relation to the new structure.

The company management made it absolutely clear in all presentations and briefings to employees that it would not negotiate with SIPTU in respect of the proposed changes. Instead, the company announced that it would negotiate through the Staff Representative Group (SRG), or directly with worker representatives.

However, the Rights Commissioner’s decision records that the majority of the workforce were anxious that any talks in relation to the proposed changes should be conducted with the trade union representatives. As neither party would back down on the issue, the negotiations, which were considered necessary to bring about the required changes, never took place.

Victimisation claim

In December 2005, a series of meetings were held by management with small groups of employees. The claimants in the case argued that management representatives ‘went to great lengths’ to advise employees that ‘if they did not allow the SRG to negotiate on their behalf, there would be job losses’.

SIPTU believed that the management’s insistence that job losses would occur amounted to victimisation of employees. The threat of job losses, however, turned out to be real, as the company announced in July 2006 that it would be closing down in September 2006.

The company argued that it did not victimise the workers as defined in Section 8(3) of the 2004 act. The management stated that any alleged acts of victimisation must have occurred prior to the claimants making their complaint in January 2006. As the plant closure and resultant job losses occurred subsequent to January 2006, the management insisted that these events could not form the basis of the complaints.

Views of Rights Commissioner

According to the Rights Commissioner, the question which had to be addressed was whether the company had taken ‘any action of commission, or omission, prior to the referral, that on objective grounds adversely affected the interest of the employees or their well-being because of the employees’ membership or activity on behalf of SIPTU’.

It seemed clear from the legislation that the company’s refusal to recognise or negotiate with SIPTU ‘did not of itself constitute victimisation’, according to the Rights Commissioner. However, he concluded that:

… the insistence of the company that it would only negotiate the necessary changes for the efficient operation of the plant through the SRG, or alternatively directly with the workers, thus effectively leaving them unrepresented, or, as appears to have been the case, do nothing to introduce the necessary changes does amount to doing an act that on objective grounds adversely affects the interests of the employees or their well-being and amounts to each of the employees being victimised because of their membership of SIPTU.

Outcome of proceedings

As a result, the commissioner upheld the complaint of victimisation and ordered Green Isle Foods to pay €5,000 in compensation to each of the 24 claimants who were recorded as having attended the hearing at various times over the two days it took place.

Brian Sheehan, IRN Publishing