Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8767 Case Number: LCR11079 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CIE - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the downgrading of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court finds that there is no provision within Company procedures
which would enable the Union's appeal to be implemented. The
Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8767 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11079
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11079
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the downgrading of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this case entered the service of
C.I.E. as a temporary depot person on 26 July, 1962. The worker
was appointed as a fork lift truck operator at North Wall on 1st
January, 1979. While operating a fork lift truck on 12th March,
1985, the worker was involved in an accident in which another
employee was seriously injured. On investigation of the incident,
Management found that the worker was guilty of negligence. The
case was processed through the agreed disciplinary machinery, and
the worker was reduced in grade from fork lift truck operator to
depotperson as and from the 10th April, 1986. On 5th May, 1986
the Union, on behalf of the worker, wrote to the Company and
requested that the worker be allowed to retain his rate of pay on
a personal basis. This appeal was based on three points:
(i) The impact of the demotion on the worker.
(ii) The fact that he is a married man and the loss of
earnings would be a source of suffering for his family.
(iii) The torment which the worker will have to contend with
through having been involved in an accident which
caused serious injury to a colleague.
The Company replied that as the worker had to be removed from the
duties of fork lift driver it was not possible to allow him to
retain his grade. It also stated that the worker was dealt with
leniently and that the difference in the rate of pay was #4.00 per
week. Agreement could not be reached on the matter at local
level, and on 27th January, 1987, the Union referred the case to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to the hearing the Union confirmed that the
worker agreed to accept the Court's recommendation in the matter.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on March, 6, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) It is the Union's view, notwithstanding all of the
circumstances on the day in question, that the worker
acted with propriety in the performance of his duty.
The Company have not established to the Union's
satisfaction that the worker was guilty of gross
negligence.
(ii) It is worth noting, that at no stage during the course
of the whole procedure did the Company suggest that was
not a suitable person, or indeed, competent to drive
the big fork-trucks for which he carried his grade.
Their primary concern at all times was the maintenance
of confidence in the total operation of the Unit Load
from both the employee and users point of view, and
they felt that to leave the worker as a machine
operator in the area could undermine that confidence.
They further concerned themselves with the
consideration that if they took a decision to leave the
worker in his former position, and if a similar
situation was to occur there could be major insurance
consequences for the Company. These concerns could
have easily been satisfied by taking a decision to
withdraw the worker from driving duties, and this did
not of itself necessitate down-grading.
(iii) During the course of discussions with the Area Freight
Manager, the Union formed the opinion that there was
considerable sympathy for the worker. The Company
could have reflected this by leaving the worker with
the fork lift truck operator's rate of pay on a
personal basis. The principle of retaining a grade on
a 'personal basis' is well established in many areas of
industrial relations.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) If the Company were to depart from the principle that
the employee must be discharging the duties of a grade
in order to qualify for the rate applicable to that
grade, it would be in contradiction of the basic reason
why an employee holds a particular grade in the first
instance.
(b) A departure from this principle would in turn, upset
the grading and wages structure, and create the
anomolous situation whereby an employee, performing
more onerous duties, could receive the same rate as an
employee performing less onerous duties. Obviously,
such a situation would be unfair and unacceptable to
all concerned, apart altogether from considerations of
cost.
(c) There are many precedents over the years where
employees have been reduced in grade for various
reasons, and their rate of pay was reduced to that
applicable to the lower grade to which they had been
reduced. In the past 12 months, there have been four
such cases in the rail traffic section alone.
Conversely, there are no cases where such employees are
allowed retain their previous rate.
(d) On the question of the impact of the demotion on the
worker, the Company endorses a statement made by the
Area Freight Manager, North Wall, in a letter of the
15th April, 1986, to the Branch Secretary of the Union.
In this letter it is stated that the decision not to
re-instate the worker in his former grade of fork lift
operator only relates to his driving ability, and in no
way reflects on his general character or integrity, for
which he is held in the highest esteem. The Company
also endorses the statement in that letter to the
effect that, subject to his suitability, the worker's
prospects of acting in or being promoted to other
higher grades are not necessarily impaired by the
penalty imposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court finds that there is no provision within Company procedures
which would enable the Union's appeal to be implemented. The
Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
6th April, 1987.
P.F./J.C.