Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87791 Case Number: AD8797 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal, by the parties, against Rights Commissioners Recommendation (CM 18105) concerning a suspension and final warning for a worker.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand and so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87791 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9787
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the parties, against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation (CM 18105) concerning a suspension and final
warning for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. This appeal concerns a mechanic employed by the Corporation
for 10 years at Bolton Street yard. The Corporation proposed to
suspend the worker for five days and gave him a final written
warning because, on 20th July, 1987 he left work to bring another
employee's vehicle in to the yard but instead mistakenly brought
in the vehicle of a member of the public. The owner of the latter
notified the Gardai that his vehicle was stolen and again the
worker absented himself from duty to explain his action. He had
to absent himself also for the purpose of returning the vehicle.
On the same date he repaired the "wrong" vehicle which he says was
during lunch hour. On 23rd July, 1987 he got the keys of the
"correct" vehicle during working hours which, according to
himself, he repaired during lunch hour".
The Union claimed that the suspension and final warning should be
lifted and substituted with a warning for the future. The
Corporation position was that the penalties must stand.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and the
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner. On 14th October,
1987 the Rights Commissioner, having completed his investigation,
issued his recommendation as follows:
"Management carried out a thorough and conclusive enquiry and
their allegations against the worker are substantiated.
They perceived the sum of his misdemeanours as meriting five
days' suspension with a final warning but while that is a
fair measure of their vexation a lesser penalty should have
the same effect in bringing home to him the seriousness of
such misconduct. Therefore I recommend that the suspension
be for two days and that the final warning be deemed to have
expired on 31st August, 1988 unless in the meanwhile he has
incurred some further disciplinary action".
The parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to
the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
25th November, 1987 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The punishment in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is excessive for the alleged offence and
should be replaced with a written warning. The only evidence
that the worker took the van into the yard was that he
admitted doing it.
2. The Corporation were in breach of the Craftsmens
grievance procedure as a result of the excessive period of
time taken to investigate the problem. The worker heard
nothing about the matter in the two months from the time he
was first questioned to the time he received the letter of
suspension.
3. The worker is not one to go looking for work after hours,
if he was the Union would not be able to justify defending
him. On this occasion he was asked by another worker to
repair his van.
4. The Corporation have implied that the work on the van was
carried out on the premises and in Corporation time. The
acting grade one foreman's response that he did not see
anyone perform private work on the premises contradicts this.
It can be proven that the work was carried out in a private
garage during lunch hour.
5. It was unfortunate that a mix up occurred with the vans.
The original van turned out to be the wrong one, which had
been reported missing to the Gardai. The worker, who is also
a member of the retained brigade, was anxious to ensure that
the Gardai were aware of the full facts and so he contacted
the Gardai by 'phone during working hours. Fire brigade
personnel and Gardai have a good working relationship, and he
was anxious that it remain intact.
6. Prior to the incident it was common practice for both
staff and members of the public to drive into Bolton Street
yard. The staff to work and the public on business. After
the incident a barrier was placed at the entrance. No
vehicles other that Corporation ones are presently allowed
into the yard. The sole reason why the worker drove in the
van was to have it near the garage and so make it easy to put
his tool box in at lunch time.
7. The incident at the bridge involving the worker is not
relevant to the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. The worker has 10 years clear service apart
from the incidents with the vans and the bridge.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Corporation is opposed to the reduction from five
days to two days in the duration of the suspension for the
following reasons:
"The imposition earlier (on 27 July, 1987) of a three day
suspension and warning, which of itself was lenient
having regard to the circumstances which gave rise to it,
namely, the interference with and obstruction of a bridge
lift on the River Suir by the worker, by means of placing
one-man unofficial picket while the vessel was under way
and approaching the Opening Span of the Bridge; an action
which could have had very grave consequences.
The Corporation in the present case chose to recognise a
degree of distinction between the workers actions as
member of the Garage staff and as a Bridge Operative, but
for which it would have imposed dismissal in the present
instance; but settled instead for five day suspension and
repetition of warning".
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
17th December, 1987 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'M/J.C.