Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87315 Case Number: LCR11253 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MICRO MOTORS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of a dismissed worker for re-instatement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has noted the apparent difficulties which have been
occurring in this Company over the past years in relation to
productivity and the operation of the bonus incentive scheme which
have led to a poor industrial relations climate. This climate has
contributed to the present position of the claimant and the Court
therefore recommends that immediate discussions take place with a
view to resolving the outstanding productivity difficulties, the
successful resolution of which might encourage the Company to
consider a period of suspension of 6 months with a final warning
for the claimant. The Union for its part should take steps to
ensure that the mobility clause of the Company/Union Agreement
will operate without interruptions in production in the future.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87315 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11253
CC87257 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11253
Parties: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a dismissed worker for re-instatement.
Background:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as an assembly worker
for approximately fourteen years. His duties mainly included
turning motors and pressing stators. A procedural agreement
exists in the Company which contains provisions for work mobility.
On 17th December, 1986 the worker was requested to carry out work
on connection of 80/40 Motors which he refused to do. Management
insisted that the worker carry out this work and he was given a
written instruction by the Company giving him until the morning of
19th December, 1986 to carry out the instructions (the worker did
not accept the written instructions which were then read out to
him). The worker did not carry out the work on 19th December,
1986 and was consequently suspended by the Company pending a full
investigation. On completion of this investigation the Company
dismissed the worker. The suspension of the worker on 19th
December, 1986 led to a work stoppage. Management closed the
Company on 22nd December, 1986 and re-opened with a phased return
to work commencing early in February, 1987. On 11th February,
1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 9th April,
1987 at which no agreement could be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 19th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker's main duties were turning and pressing, on
which he had an efficiency rating of approximately
166%. As he spent most of his time at this work it
yielded the most bonus earnings to the worker. The
connection work that the worker was requested to do
would not have resulted in the same bonus and was not
urgent, the worker therefore suggested to the
supervisor that other operatives (details supplied to
the Court) carry out the work.
(ii) The case of this worker is part of a broader problem
that exists in the Company. For the last two years the
Company has been seeking changes in the bonus scheme in
relation to protection of earnings. Very little
progress was made in 1986 and the result of the failure
to agree on a re-structuring of the bonus scheme led to
a very tense climate. The worker's refusal to carry
out the work in December, 1986 was not a refusal in the
normal context of such a situation. The worker was
insisting that his earnings should not be adversely
affected (by changing to a different operation) when he
had sufficient work to carry out himself and when other
operatives were available to carry out the connection
work.
(iii) The worker regretted that he did not carry out the work
under protest, but was of the opinion that the
supervisor was unhelpful in the matter. The Company in
terminating his employment did not pay him the six
weeks minimum notice to which he was entitled.
(iv) The Union requested that the worker be re-instated on
the basis of a three or six months probationary period,
at the conclusion of which, if his service was
satisfactory, he be re-instated. If this were done it
would substantially improve the bad industrial
relations climate that existed in the Company at
present. The Union assured the Court that such a
situation as occurred in the case of this worker would
not be repeated. Both workers and Union
representatives have signed pledges to the Company to
abide by procedures and not to take part in unofficial
industrial action.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker had previously carried out this job when
requested to do so. On a previous occasion when he had
a grievance on clocking on, about loss of earnings
(bonus) on this job he was awarded #300 by a Rights
Commissioner. This recommendation was appealed by the
Company but upheld by the Labour Court (Labour Court
Recommendation No. AD-78-84 of 27th September, 1984
refers). This was accepted by both parties and there
were no misunderstandings by either side regarding the
future arrangements on such matters.
(b) The worker was told to do a job which was part of his
duty. The worker was verbally requested to carry out
the work a number of times. Following consistent
refusals by the worker he was given a written warning
(details supplied to the Court) which was read out to
him as he refused to accept it. The written warning
gave him until 8.00 a.m. on 19th December, 1986 to
carry out the instructions. On 19th December, 1986 the
worker still refused to carry out the work and so
management had no option but to suspend him and carry
out an investigation. Following this investigation the
worker was dismissed as that was the only option
available to management.
(c) The worker was given due warning of suspension and
advised that if suspended, his record would be
investigated, as a result of which it was possible that
his employment would be terminated. However, he still
refused to carry out the work instructions. The
Company is satisfied that every opportunity was given
to the worker to carry out the instructions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has noted the apparent difficulties which have been
occurring in this Company over the past years in relation to
productivity and the operation of the bonus incentive scheme which
have led to a poor industrial relations climate. This climate has
contributed to the present position of the claimant and the Court
therefore recommends that immediate discussions take place with a
view to resolving the outstanding productivity difficulties, the
successful resolution of which might encourage the Company to
consider a period of suspension of 6 months with a final warning
for the claimant. The Union for its part should take steps to
ensure that the mobility clause of the Company/Union Agreement
will operate without interruptions in production in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
---------------------
Deputy Chairman.
19th June, 1987.
U.M./J.C.
From: COFFEY 19-JUN-1987 15:34