WHAT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR…
Health and Safety Considerations: electricity
Places of work generally have power nominally supplied at 230 volt (single phase) and 400 volt (3 phase) although some larger workplaces will receive electricity at a higher supply voltage. The information below relates to workplaces using 230 and 400 volt supplies.
The main hazards with electricity are:
If a worker has come into contact with electricity the worker may not be able to remove themselves from the electrical source. The human body is a good conductor of electricity. If an employee touched a person while they are in contact with the electrical source, the electricity will flow through their body as well, causing electrical shock. Firstly, an attempt should be made to turn off the source of the electricity (disconnect). (On this latter point, Regulation 78(a) of the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work (General Applications) Regulations 2007 requires the identification of electrical equipment, by way of labeling or otherwise, in order to prevent danger arising from confusion, mistaken identity or some other cause).
If the electrical source cannot readily and safely be turned off, use a non-conducting object, such as a fibreglass object or a wooden pole, to remove the person from the electrical source.
Extension cables and other flexible leads which are particularly prone to damage to plugs and sockets and to their connections are visually checked, maintained and where necessary replaced before using portable equipment. The ends of flexible cables should always have the outer sheath of the cable firmly clamped to stop the wires (particularly the earth) pulling out of the terminals:
Controlling the Risk
Reduce the Voltage
Often portable equipment is available that is powered from a 110 volt supply through a simple transformer and these are often centre tapped to earth so that the maximum voltage between a live conductor and earth (the most common cause of electric shocks from equipment) is limited to 55V.
Ensure Fuses are correctly fitted
The fuse protects the device from over current. It is designed to ‘blow’ and cut off the electricity when the current exceeds its rated capacity. It is important to ensure the correct fuse is used for the appliance. As a general guide 3 amp fuses are used in equipment up to 700 watts (W). For equipment with a rating greater than 700 watts (W) a 13-amp fuse will be required. Some equipment requires a 5 amp fuse e.g. some televisions and, other equipment like some printers require 10 amp fuses. Always read the manufacturer’s instructions.
Provide One or More Residual Current Device (RCD)
If equipment operating at 230 volts or higher is used, an RCD (residual current device) can provide additional safety. RCD’s are supplementary protection devices, which do not prevent an electrical shock, but are able to limit the duration of some shocks by enabling the rapid disconnection of the electricity supply, when an electrical shock takes place. RCD's are mandatory on all circuits supplying portable equipment and on certain other circuits where the hazard of electricity is exacerbated by the proximity of water. An RCD is a device which detects some, but not all, faults in the electrical system and rapidly switches off the supply. The best place for an RCD is built into the main switchboard or the socket-outlet, as this means that the supply cables are permanently protected.
If this is not possible then a plug incorporating a RCD, or a plug-in RCD adaptor can be used to provide additional safety.
Carry out preventative maintenance
All electrical equipment and installations should be maintained to prevent danger.
Legislation
The requirement for periodic inspection testing and reporting is set out in Regulation 89 of the 2007 Safety Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, as such the HSA have produced a guidance document entitled; “Guidance-Note on Periodic Inspection and Testing of Electrical Installations”.
The legislation provides for;
“ an employer shall ensure that—…
…(b) an existing electrical installation is tested by a competent person in an appropriate manner–
(i) from time to time where required having regard to the nature, location and use of the installation.”
The guidance document refers to a visual inspection by employees, i.e. they should look for:
Section 81 of the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work [General Applications] Regulations 2007 also make provision for portable appliance testing, e.g. toasters, kettles etc;
“…(c) portable equipment which is--
(i) exposed to conditions causing deterioration liable to result in danger, and
(ii) supplied at a voltage exceeding 125 volts alternating current,
is--
(I) visually checked by the user before use, and
(II) periodically inspected by a competent person, appropriate to the nature location and use of the equipment.
(2) An employer shall ensure, where appropriate, that a competent person--
(a) tests any portable equipment described in paragraph (1)(c)(i) and (ii), and
(b) certifies whether or not the portable equipment (including any cables and plugs was, on the day of test, as far as could reasonably be ascertained, safe and without risk to persons coming into direct or indirect contact with any live part of the equipment.”
Tony McDonnell - Health and Safety Consultant
Adare Human Resource Management
With over 32 years as a Firefighter-Paramedic and Operational Fire Officer, a lot of experience has been acquired in all aspects of fire, rescue and medical emergencies. This has stood to Tony when delivering fire safety training or offering fire safety consultancy and first aid responder (workplace) courses.
Tony studied Health, Safety and Welfare in UCD. Tony is a Chartered Member status with IOSH. As a result, Tony is now a proficient safety consultant compiling safety statements, risk assessments and control measures.
Tony is also a trainer in key occupational related courses, including fire safety, first aid responders, manual handling, people handling, abrasive wheels, safety management, risk assessing, fire extinguishers, cardiac first responder, paediatric first aid.
Tony, Chartered Member of IOSH (CMIOSH) Member of IFE (MIFireE) P.Cert in Env.Man
Tony can deliver training on a range of topics including but not limited to;
Contact details:
Phone: 01 561 3594 / 086 011 5026
Email: tmcdonnell@adarehrm.ie
The main hazards with electricity are:
- contact with live parts causing shock and burns
- faults which could cause fires;
- fire.
If a worker has come into contact with electricity the worker may not be able to remove themselves from the electrical source. The human body is a good conductor of electricity. If an employee touched a person while they are in contact with the electrical source, the electricity will flow through their body as well, causing electrical shock. Firstly, an attempt should be made to turn off the source of the electricity (disconnect). (On this latter point, Regulation 78(a) of the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work (General Applications) Regulations 2007 requires the identification of electrical equipment, by way of labeling or otherwise, in order to prevent danger arising from confusion, mistaken identity or some other cause).
If the electrical source cannot readily and safely be turned off, use a non-conducting object, such as a fibreglass object or a wooden pole, to remove the person from the electrical source.
Extension cables and other flexible leads which are particularly prone to damage to plugs and sockets and to their connections are visually checked, maintained and where necessary replaced before using portable equipment. The ends of flexible cables should always have the outer sheath of the cable firmly clamped to stop the wires (particularly the earth) pulling out of the terminals:
- Use the correct cable connectors or couplers to join lengths of cables together and do not allow taped joints.
- Electrical installations are installed and maintained by a competent person and checked regularly
- Socket Outlets are not overloaded by the use of adaptors
- Electrically powered equipment provided is suitable for use
- Fixed electrical equipment should have a clearly identified switch to cut off power in an emergency
- that portable equipment labelled as being double insulated has had the live and neutral connected properly to the plug by a competent person unless the plug is of a moulded type.
Controlling the Risk
Reduce the Voltage
Often portable equipment is available that is powered from a 110 volt supply through a simple transformer and these are often centre tapped to earth so that the maximum voltage between a live conductor and earth (the most common cause of electric shocks from equipment) is limited to 55V.
- Battery operated tools such as drills, screwdrivers etc can replace mains powered equipment.
Ensure Fuses are correctly fitted
The fuse protects the device from over current. It is designed to ‘blow’ and cut off the electricity when the current exceeds its rated capacity. It is important to ensure the correct fuse is used for the appliance. As a general guide 3 amp fuses are used in equipment up to 700 watts (W). For equipment with a rating greater than 700 watts (W) a 13-amp fuse will be required. Some equipment requires a 5 amp fuse e.g. some televisions and, other equipment like some printers require 10 amp fuses. Always read the manufacturer’s instructions.
Provide One or More Residual Current Device (RCD)
If equipment operating at 230 volts or higher is used, an RCD (residual current device) can provide additional safety. RCD’s are supplementary protection devices, which do not prevent an electrical shock, but are able to limit the duration of some shocks by enabling the rapid disconnection of the electricity supply, when an electrical shock takes place. RCD's are mandatory on all circuits supplying portable equipment and on certain other circuits where the hazard of electricity is exacerbated by the proximity of water. An RCD is a device which detects some, but not all, faults in the electrical system and rapidly switches off the supply. The best place for an RCD is built into the main switchboard or the socket-outlet, as this means that the supply cables are permanently protected.
If this is not possible then a plug incorporating a RCD, or a plug-in RCD adaptor can be used to provide additional safety.
- RCD's for protecting people have a rated tripping current (sensitivity) of not more than 30 milliamps (mA).
- an RCD is a valuable safety device, never bypass it;
- if the RCD trips, it is a sign there is a fault. Check the system before using it again;
- if the RCD trips frequently and no fault can be found in the system, consult the manufacturer of the RCD;
- the RCD has a test button to check that its mechanism is free and functioning and should be used regularly.
Carry out preventative maintenance
All electrical equipment and installations should be maintained to prevent danger.
- This should include an appropriate system of visual inspection and, where necessary, testing. By concentrating on a simple, inexpensive system of looking for visible signs of damage or faults, most of the electrical risks can be controlled.
- It is recommended that fixed installations are inspected and tested periodically by a competent person. The frequency of inspections and any necessary testing will depend on the type of installation, how often it is used, and the environment in which it is used.
- Users can help by reporting any damage or defects they find.
- Ensure that people who are working with electricity are competent to do the job. Even simple tasks such as wiring a plug can lead to danger - ensure that people know what they are doing before they start.
Legislation
The requirement for periodic inspection testing and reporting is set out in Regulation 89 of the 2007 Safety Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, as such the HSA have produced a guidance document entitled; “Guidance-Note on Periodic Inspection and Testing of Electrical Installations”.
The legislation provides for;
“ an employer shall ensure that—…
…(b) an existing electrical installation is tested by a competent person in an appropriate manner–
(i) from time to time where required having regard to the nature, location and use of the installation.”
The guidance document refers to a visual inspection by employees, i.e. they should look for:
- breakages
- wear & deterioration
- signs of over heating
- periodic inspections carried out by competent persons, e.g. RECI registered electricians.
Section 81 of the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work [General Applications] Regulations 2007 also make provision for portable appliance testing, e.g. toasters, kettles etc;
“…(c) portable equipment which is--
(i) exposed to conditions causing deterioration liable to result in danger, and
(ii) supplied at a voltage exceeding 125 volts alternating current,
is--
(I) visually checked by the user before use, and
(II) periodically inspected by a competent person, appropriate to the nature location and use of the equipment.
(2) An employer shall ensure, where appropriate, that a competent person--
(a) tests any portable equipment described in paragraph (1)(c)(i) and (ii), and
(b) certifies whether or not the portable equipment (including any cables and plugs was, on the day of test, as far as could reasonably be ascertained, safe and without risk to persons coming into direct or indirect contact with any live part of the equipment.”
Tony McDonnell - Health and Safety Consultant
Adare Human Resource Management
With over 32 years as a Firefighter-Paramedic and Operational Fire Officer, a lot of experience has been acquired in all aspects of fire, rescue and medical emergencies. This has stood to Tony when delivering fire safety training or offering fire safety consultancy and first aid responder (workplace) courses.
Tony studied Health, Safety and Welfare in UCD. Tony is a Chartered Member status with IOSH. As a result, Tony is now a proficient safety consultant compiling safety statements, risk assessments and control measures.
Tony is also a trainer in key occupational related courses, including fire safety, first aid responders, manual handling, people handling, abrasive wheels, safety management, risk assessing, fire extinguishers, cardiac first responder, paediatric first aid.
Tony, Chartered Member of IOSH (CMIOSH) Member of IFE (MIFireE) P.Cert in Env.Man
Tony can deliver training on a range of topics including but not limited to;
- Manual handling
- Patient/People handling
- First Aid Responder
- First Aid Responder Refresher
- Cardiac First Responder (AED)
- Fire Safety Management
- Fire Extinguisher training
- Evacuation Chair Training
- Abrasive Wheels Training
- Workplace Safety Representative Training
- Managing Safety Training
Contact details:
Phone: 01 561 3594 / 086 011 5026
Email: tmcdonnell@adarehrm.ie
Workers to get Single Sick Cert after benefit scheme overhaul
A planned overhaul of the €600 million sickness benefit scheme will see workers issued with a single certificate to cover the entire expected period of an illness.
And guidelines will be issued to GPs advising them how long a sick cert should last depending on the specific illness.
At present, a person claiming illness benefit for longer than a week must provide a new sick cert for each additional week of illness.
Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty has said the new system will ensure the correct level of payment is given “for the appropriate period of time”.
“Given the nature and volume of illness benefit claims received by my department, I am very much open to improving the claims process in any way which benefits recipients while ensuring the appropriate payment goes to the appropriate person for the appropriate period of time. Ultimately, we should aim to have a system that works efficiently and as simply as possible.”
Under the new process, a person will receive a single sick cert for a complete period of an illness based on the expected duration of recovery from the illness.
“This process would remove the need for ongoing weekly certification where an illness lasts longer than a week.
The period of closed certification would be based on the GP’s assessment of their patient and the department’s closed certification guidelines,” a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Protection said.
“The guidelines provide evidence-based, expected durations of recovery for common health conditions and common surgical procedures, categorised according to the international standard ICD10 classification of illnesses.”
The department has said the “clinical judgment” of the GP would take precedence.
“It is important to state that the department’s guidelines are not prescriptive. There will, undoubtedly, be individual variations in recovery times, some patients recovering and returning to work earlier than expected, others later.
Ultimately, the clinical judgment of the treating GP or specialist will be paramount.
“The new certification process should provide patients with a clear expectation of duration of recovery and also be a more efficient process for the GP, the customer and the department.”
The number of people claiming these payments and the costs relating to them have soared in recent years
Up to 55,000 people claim illness benefit at any one time countrywide. The scheme costs the Government €600 million every year and the department receives about 1,000 illness benefit claims each working day.
Concerns about the cost of the scheme have been raised as far back as 2012 by the former minister for protection Joan Burton.
She said costs relating to illness benefit, disability allowance and invalidity pension were “enormous”.
“The number of people claiming these payments and the costs relating to them have soared in recent years,” she said, pointing towards a 44 per cent increase from some 170,000 to some 247,000 between 2001 and 2010.
About 359,000 people are currently in receipt of illness, disability or caring payments.
Ms Burton said that in previous consultations with employers, an issue which has been raised was the “perception among employers, which I share, that there were serious issues about the way in which some medical practitioners issued sick notes” for the scheme.
Workers in the Department of Social Protection itself have taken about 200,000 illness benefit claims every year over the last three years.
The top most common medical conditions certified related to musculoskeletal issues, low back pain, stress, anxiety and post-operative conditions.
About 60 per cent of claims, 120,000, resulted in a return to work within six weeks with a further 12 per cent, or about 23,000, returned to work within seven to 14 weeks.
The average worker at the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection was out for 13 days due to illness, figures for 2017 show.
This compares with an average of under nine days across the public service. The total cost of sick leave across the public service is estimated at €341.5 million for 2017.
And guidelines will be issued to GPs advising them how long a sick cert should last depending on the specific illness.
At present, a person claiming illness benefit for longer than a week must provide a new sick cert for each additional week of illness.
Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty has said the new system will ensure the correct level of payment is given “for the appropriate period of time”.
“Given the nature and volume of illness benefit claims received by my department, I am very much open to improving the claims process in any way which benefits recipients while ensuring the appropriate payment goes to the appropriate person for the appropriate period of time. Ultimately, we should aim to have a system that works efficiently and as simply as possible.”
Under the new process, a person will receive a single sick cert for a complete period of an illness based on the expected duration of recovery from the illness.
“This process would remove the need for ongoing weekly certification where an illness lasts longer than a week.
The period of closed certification would be based on the GP’s assessment of their patient and the department’s closed certification guidelines,” a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Protection said.
“The guidelines provide evidence-based, expected durations of recovery for common health conditions and common surgical procedures, categorised according to the international standard ICD10 classification of illnesses.”
The department has said the “clinical judgment” of the GP would take precedence.
“It is important to state that the department’s guidelines are not prescriptive. There will, undoubtedly, be individual variations in recovery times, some patients recovering and returning to work earlier than expected, others later.
Ultimately, the clinical judgment of the treating GP or specialist will be paramount.
“The new certification process should provide patients with a clear expectation of duration of recovery and also be a more efficient process for the GP, the customer and the department.”
The number of people claiming these payments and the costs relating to them have soared in recent years
Up to 55,000 people claim illness benefit at any one time countrywide. The scheme costs the Government €600 million every year and the department receives about 1,000 illness benefit claims each working day.
Concerns about the cost of the scheme have been raised as far back as 2012 by the former minister for protection Joan Burton.
She said costs relating to illness benefit, disability allowance and invalidity pension were “enormous”.
“The number of people claiming these payments and the costs relating to them have soared in recent years,” she said, pointing towards a 44 per cent increase from some 170,000 to some 247,000 between 2001 and 2010.
About 359,000 people are currently in receipt of illness, disability or caring payments.
Ms Burton said that in previous consultations with employers, an issue which has been raised was the “perception among employers, which I share, that there were serious issues about the way in which some medical practitioners issued sick notes” for the scheme.
Workers in the Department of Social Protection itself have taken about 200,000 illness benefit claims every year over the last three years.
The top most common medical conditions certified related to musculoskeletal issues, low back pain, stress, anxiety and post-operative conditions.
About 60 per cent of claims, 120,000, resulted in a return to work within six weeks with a further 12 per cent, or about 23,000, returned to work within seven to 14 weeks.
The average worker at the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection was out for 13 days due to illness, figures for 2017 show.
This compares with an average of under nine days across the public service. The total cost of sick leave across the public service is estimated at €341.5 million for 2017.
Tesco ordered to pay €4,000 to Worker fired after taking wine
Tesco sacked a worker after she admitted taking a bottle of wine valued at less than €20 and not paying for it.
Ann Faherty was dismissed by Tesco Ireland on March 29, 2016, arising from an incident on January 13, 2016, when Ms Faherty was intercepted by a security officer after she left the store at the end of her shift.
Ms Faherty had a bottle of wine in her bag, but maintained that she had forgotten to pay for it.
Now, Ms Faherty has successfully sued for unfair dismissal at the Labour Court after the court found that the decision to dismiss her "was tainted with procedural unfairness".
However, the Labour Court found that Ms Faherty contributed substantially to her own dismissal.
This was taken into account in measuring the quantum of compensation, with Tesco Ireland ordered to pay Ms Faherty €4,000.
The Labour Court ruling upholds an earlier ruling at the Workplace Relations Commission, which Tesco Ireland had appealed.
Tesco said it had dismissed Ms Faherty for breach of its Honesty policy and its Staff Purchase policy, and because the bond of trust between employee and employer had broken down.
But the Labour Court noted that at no stage of the investigative or disciplinary process was she supplied with a copy of Tesco's Honesty or Staff Purchase policies which she was contended to have breached.
Ann Faherty was dismissed by Tesco Ireland on March 29, 2016, arising from an incident on January 13, 2016, when Ms Faherty was intercepted by a security officer after she left the store at the end of her shift.
Ms Faherty had a bottle of wine in her bag, but maintained that she had forgotten to pay for it.
Now, Ms Faherty has successfully sued for unfair dismissal at the Labour Court after the court found that the decision to dismiss her "was tainted with procedural unfairness".
However, the Labour Court found that Ms Faherty contributed substantially to her own dismissal.
This was taken into account in measuring the quantum of compensation, with Tesco Ireland ordered to pay Ms Faherty €4,000.
The Labour Court ruling upholds an earlier ruling at the Workplace Relations Commission, which Tesco Ireland had appealed.
Tesco said it had dismissed Ms Faherty for breach of its Honesty policy and its Staff Purchase policy, and because the bond of trust between employee and employer had broken down.
But the Labour Court noted that at no stage of the investigative or disciplinary process was she supplied with a copy of Tesco's Honesty or Staff Purchase policies which she was contended to have breached.
Aer Lingus was told to pay Thousands to Workers ‘In Limbo’ after a restricting of its food unit
Aer Lingus has been told to pay €14,000 to two former catering staff members who claimed they were left “in limbo” after being removed from their roles over five years ago.
The Labour Court recently recommended in two separate decisions that the airline pay €7,000 each to the two workers for causing them “great distress” following the 2013 restructuring of the carrier’s catering unit.
The move took place two years before Aer Lingus was acquired by Spanish group IAG in 2015.
According to the anonymised decisions published by the industrial relations body, the workers’ roles were made redundant in August 2013 following Aer Lingus’s review of its food department.
One of the staff members, who had worked as a manager in flight sales within the catering department, said she was made aware of the changes while on holiday in Portugal and told the Labour Court “the news came out of the blue, without notice or consultation”.
Both workers were invited to attend meetings with the company’s HR business partner and director of change and engagement where they were told the rationale for the restructuring exercise.
The workers each disputed the reasoning and initiated formal grievance processes. ‘Limbo’
In September 2013, the former flight sales manager was temporarily appointed as an administrative assistant at Aer Lingus’s training academy.
She remained in that role until November 2016 when she was told she could be made redundant again because a colleague was returning from maternity leave.
The woman raised an objection with management over her temporary status. The employer “accepted that there was a misunderstanding” and in December of that year made her position permanent.
While the employee’s remuneration and terms and conditions of employment had been preserved, “her title and duties have changed and she no longer holds the title ‘manager’”, the Labour Court noted.
The other worker had previously served as manager of catering operations at Aer Lingus.
Following the catering department restructure, he was redeployed as cash office manager on a temporary basis from September 2013 to October 2016, when he was told he was at risk of redundancy because the airline was introducing new cash machines.
Similarly to his colleague, he objected and was then made permanent in December of that year.
In their complaints to the Labour Court, the workers claimed that Aer Lingus had “repeatedly failed” to address their concerns and accused the airline of leaving them “in limbo”. Both wanted to be restored to their original roles.
Decision
The airline disputed the employees’ arguments. It told the court it gave them the option of taking a voluntary severance package or opting to be placed in a resource pool for employees displaced due to changes in business.
It said the resource pool provides “an intensified search for an alternative permanent role” as well as training and other supports.
Aer Lingus also ‘red-circled’, or froze, the workers’ remuneration and terms and conditions of employment.
The court said that it was satisfied there was a genuine reason to make the workers redundant and that the airline was within its rights to restructure the catering department and eliminate certain roles.
However, it criticised Aer Lingus’s approach to dealing with the complainants.
It described the company’s redundancy notification and consultation process as “wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory in the circumstances”.
It said the airline had caused “great distress” to the workers and recommended that the company pay each of them €7,000 in compensation.
A spokeswoman for the company told Fora: “Aer Lingus accepts the Labour Court recommendation in its totality and considers the matter closed.”
Outgoing Aer Lingus boss Stephen Kavanagh
Commenting on redundancy law in general, Katie Ridge, head of employer relations at Adare Human Resource Management, said “it is advisable that an at-risk-of-redundancy meeting should take place with the relevant employee where notification and/or consultation should take place before the decision is made”.
The Labour Court decisions come a month after outgoing Aer Lingus boss Stephen Kavanagh issued an apology following the publication of a Sunday Independent article stating that “many millions of euro” was lost by the airline due to missing stock.
The article – which was based on an internal memo and suggested workers were accused of taking the stock – stated that Aer Lingus was rolling out CCTV cameras in Dublin Airport and hiring private security to carry out random patrols of staff areas.
After publication of the front-page story, members of the airline’s senior management met with staff and Kavanagh apologised for the “hurt and upset” caused to staff by the article, which he claimed was “misleading”.
The Labour Court recently recommended in two separate decisions that the airline pay €7,000 each to the two workers for causing them “great distress” following the 2013 restructuring of the carrier’s catering unit.
The move took place two years before Aer Lingus was acquired by Spanish group IAG in 2015.
According to the anonymised decisions published by the industrial relations body, the workers’ roles were made redundant in August 2013 following Aer Lingus’s review of its food department.
One of the staff members, who had worked as a manager in flight sales within the catering department, said she was made aware of the changes while on holiday in Portugal and told the Labour Court “the news came out of the blue, without notice or consultation”.
Both workers were invited to attend meetings with the company’s HR business partner and director of change and engagement where they were told the rationale for the restructuring exercise.
The workers each disputed the reasoning and initiated formal grievance processes. ‘Limbo’
In September 2013, the former flight sales manager was temporarily appointed as an administrative assistant at Aer Lingus’s training academy.
She remained in that role until November 2016 when she was told she could be made redundant again because a colleague was returning from maternity leave.
The woman raised an objection with management over her temporary status. The employer “accepted that there was a misunderstanding” and in December of that year made her position permanent.
While the employee’s remuneration and terms and conditions of employment had been preserved, “her title and duties have changed and she no longer holds the title ‘manager’”, the Labour Court noted.
The other worker had previously served as manager of catering operations at Aer Lingus.
Following the catering department restructure, he was redeployed as cash office manager on a temporary basis from September 2013 to October 2016, when he was told he was at risk of redundancy because the airline was introducing new cash machines.
Similarly to his colleague, he objected and was then made permanent in December of that year.
In their complaints to the Labour Court, the workers claimed that Aer Lingus had “repeatedly failed” to address their concerns and accused the airline of leaving them “in limbo”. Both wanted to be restored to their original roles.
Decision
The airline disputed the employees’ arguments. It told the court it gave them the option of taking a voluntary severance package or opting to be placed in a resource pool for employees displaced due to changes in business.
It said the resource pool provides “an intensified search for an alternative permanent role” as well as training and other supports.
Aer Lingus also ‘red-circled’, or froze, the workers’ remuneration and terms and conditions of employment.
The court said that it was satisfied there was a genuine reason to make the workers redundant and that the airline was within its rights to restructure the catering department and eliminate certain roles.
However, it criticised Aer Lingus’s approach to dealing with the complainants.
It described the company’s redundancy notification and consultation process as “wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory in the circumstances”.
It said the airline had caused “great distress” to the workers and recommended that the company pay each of them €7,000 in compensation.
A spokeswoman for the company told Fora: “Aer Lingus accepts the Labour Court recommendation in its totality and considers the matter closed.”
Outgoing Aer Lingus boss Stephen Kavanagh
Commenting on redundancy law in general, Katie Ridge, head of employer relations at Adare Human Resource Management, said “it is advisable that an at-risk-of-redundancy meeting should take place with the relevant employee where notification and/or consultation should take place before the decision is made”.
The Labour Court decisions come a month after outgoing Aer Lingus boss Stephen Kavanagh issued an apology following the publication of a Sunday Independent article stating that “many millions of euro” was lost by the airline due to missing stock.
The article – which was based on an internal memo and suggested workers were accused of taking the stock – stated that Aer Lingus was rolling out CCTV cameras in Dublin Airport and hiring private security to carry out random patrols of staff areas.
After publication of the front-page story, members of the airline’s senior management met with staff and Kavanagh apologised for the “hurt and upset” caused to staff by the article, which he claimed was “misleading”.
