Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87272 Case Number: AD8757 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD - and - AEU |
Appeal, by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/17,109, concerning the suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87272 THE LABOUR COURT AD5787
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 57 OF 1987
PARTIES: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CM/17,109, concerning the suspension of a
worker.
Background:
2. On 25th July, 1986, it was alleged that the worker concerned
was physically assaulted by another worker. The Company
investigated the incident by interviewing all the employees
connected with the incident. The alleged assailant admitted that
he struck the worker concerned, after being provoked by him. The
worker concerned denied that he was guilty of any provocation but
confirmed that there were occasions of 'bantering'. The Company,
after the investigation, decided to suspend the assailant for one
month and the worker concerned for two weeks, both without pay.
3. The worker concerned rejected that his behaviour towards the
assailant was different to anyone else and therefore appealed the
Company's decision to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On
20th January, 1987, the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation -
"The conduct for which the worker was suspended went beyond
banter and evidently went on for a long time. Consequently a
suspension was warranted but because conditions at the
factory have since returned to normal and hopefully will
remain so I recommend that the suspension be reduced to a
week".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the recommendation).
4. The worker refused to accept this recommendation on the basis
that it left a slur on his character as a result of an incident
for which he regards himself as innocent. On 27th March, 1987,
the recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court, under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took
place in Navan on 23rd June, 1987,- the earliest date suitable to
both parties.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The Union contends that the assailant has a history of
violent behaviour. Witnesses to the incident have
said that there was no provocation involved. The
assailant was subsequently dismissed by the Company as
a result of another incident.
(b) The Rights Commissioner's recommendation has left a
slur on the worker's character and this may follow him
in his career with the Company. The onus should be on
the Company to prove that he provoked the assailant.
This has not yet been done.
(c) The Company could have followed disciplinary
procedures and issued a warning to the worker, rather
than suspend him for an incident in which he is
blameless.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) A large number of the employees interviewed by the
Company during its investigation confirmed the
allegations of provocation by the worker concerned
over a long period. All views on the incident were
taken into account before the Company decided what
action to take.
(ii) The disciplinary measures imposed on both employees
were reasonable given the seriousness of the incident.
The Company must be permitted to take disciplinary
action to maintain the safety, security and general
welfare of its employees.
(iii) The action taken by the Company has achieved its
objective, as bantering, fighting and violence is no
longer prevalent. If the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is not upheld the Company fears a
return of bad feeling amongst the employees.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman