Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86563 Case Number: LCR10869 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NAVAN EURO FASHION LTD. - and - IT&GWU |
Claim on behalf of two workers for payment of compensation in respect of loss of earnings arising from their suspension from duty.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is of the view that the claimants made timely
application for the day's leave required and were given to
understand that there would be no problem. The confusion
approaching the date in question was therefore the responsibility
of management.
However, on the day, the claimants refused a legitimate
instruction and left themselves liable to disciplinary action by
Management. Under the agreed procedures the claimants had a right
of appeal which was frustrated by the Company over an inordinate
length of time.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers that a
two day suspension to each of the workers is sufficient
disciplinary action and the balance of the losses sustained by
them should be refunded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86563 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10869
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10869
PARTIES: NAVAN EUROFASHION LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two workers for payment of compensation in
respect of loss of earnings arising from their suspension from
duty.
Background:
2. The workers are employed by the Company since 1983 as
machinists. In September, 1985, the two workers asked their
supervisor for a day off work on the 27th November, 1985, to
attend the wedding of one of their colleagues. According to the
Union the supervisor agreed to this but asked the workers to
remind her of the matter again later on. When they approached the
supervisor on the 22nd November, 1985, she expressed uncertainty
regarding their getting the day off on the basis that a number of
other workers had also requested the day off to attend the
wedding; she added that she had only reported the request by the
workers concerned for the day off to senior management that week.
3. Following discussions on the matter between the Company's
Secretary and the Union the Secretary suggested, that the workers
make representations to him. When they did so he in turn referred
them to the Company's Managing Director. The Managing Director
was unavailable to the workers but they were instructed by
management to report for duty on 27th November, 1985, as normal.
They failed to do so and when they returned to work on the 28th
November they were suspended from duty on that date without pay -
worker A for two weeks and worker B for four weeks.
4. Following the suspension of the workers the Union sought a
meeting with the Company to appeal the discipline imposed in line
with the Company/Union grievance procedure. The Union says that
the Company failed to attend such a meeting and when the Company
refused to have the matter investigated by a third party, in line
with the next stage of the grievance procedure, the Union referred
the dispute under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 25th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The workers have excellent time-keeping and attendance
records with the Company and have no disciplinary
warnings on their records.
(b) The workers gave maximum notice to the Company through
their Supervisor concerning their need to have the
27th November off work and reminded the Supervisor as
requested by her. Also they were the first two
employees to seek time off for the day in question.
(c) Considerable expense had been incurred by both workers
connected with the occasion, one of whom was to act as
bridesmaid.
(d) The Company by imposing the discipline was in breach
of the Company/Union grievance procedure.
(e) The severity of the discipline imposed is greater than
it seems having regard to the time of the year
involved.
(f) The Supervisor did not report the workers' request for
time off work to senior management until the week
before the wedding.
(g) Given the circumstances of this case the Company acted
in an unfair manner by imposing any discipline on the
two workers. Therefore, the workers should be fully
compensated for the loss of earnings incurred.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) In accordance with the terms of the disciplinary
procedure contained in the Company/Union agreement the
Company was entitled to dismiss the workers for
refusing to carry out a lawful management instruction.
In the circumstances the Company, by merely suspending
them from duty, acted in a fair and reasonable way
towards the workers and was not in breach of the
grievance procedure by taking the action it did, as
contended by the Union. Therefore, there was nothing
further to discuss with the Union in the matter.
(b) The workers were instructed to report for duty on the
day in question but were never given a guarantee that
they would meet the Managing Director. Had they
obeyed the management instruction the matter could
have been resolved on the day in question.
(c) The Supervisor in question has not got the authority
to give workers a day off, this is for senior
management to decide. The Supervisor says she never
promised the workers concerned they would get that
particular day off but asked them to remind her of the
matter later.
(d) Arising from the non-attendance of the workers on the
date in question a fall in production was experienced
by the Company. However, the Company does not view
this as serious as the workers' refusal to obey a
lawful instruction from management.
(e) In all the circumstances, the Company treated the
workers in a reasonable way and therefore, the Union's
claim should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court is of the view that the claimants made timely
application for the day's leave required and were given to
understand that there would be no problem. The confusion
approaching the date in question was therefore the responsibility
of management.
However, on the day, the claimants refused a legitimate
instruction and left themselves liable to disciplinary action by
Management. Under the agreed procedures the claimants had a right
of appeal which was frustrated by the Company over an inordinate
length of time.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers that a
two day suspension to each of the workers is sufficient
disciplinary action and the balance of the losses sustained by
them should be refunded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman