Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86895 Case Number: AD8723 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MITZI LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (No. CM/17,155) concerning a written warning to a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is concerned that the fact that the issue of a
warning in this case has given rise to accusations of
discrimination or conspiracy against the shop steward and the
consequences on industrial relations in the plant, which clearly
are otherwise excellent.
On the other hand quality of the Company's product is obviously of
paramount importance and the Company cannot be inhibited from
dealing with faults in this area simply by virtue of a person's
office or position.
On the balance of the information presented the Court, as did the
Rights Commissioner, accepts that the warning was warranted and is
of the opinion therefore that the Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
The Court further recommends that the parties meet and seek
agreement on a procedure on the issue of warnings which would in
the future avoid the possibility of accusations of bad faith on
anybody's part.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
27th March, 1987 ------------------
T.O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86895 THE LABOUR COURT AD23/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 23 OF 1987
PARTIES: MITZI MONAGHAN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (No.
CM/17,155) concerning a written warning to a worker.
Background:
2. The Company, which is Irish owned, is engaged in the
manufacture of jeans, skirts and other products for the Ladies
Fashion market. The Worker is one of seven Examiners/Clippers
whose job is to examine finished garments prior to pressing and
packing. This entails the cleaning of threads on each of the
garments and checking that the measurements are correct. The
Worker is also the Union's shop steward in the Company.
3. On 21st July, 1986, the Company issued the following warning
letter to the Worker:
" This is a written warning to the above named for bad quality
on clipping for which you have been guilty on numerous
occasions and have been warned on these occasions.
If this should occur again you will be suspended and if
further bad quality, then dismissal will follow."
The Union sought to have the letter withdrawn. The Company was
not willing to do so but did offer to limit the term of the
warning to three months. This was not acceptable to the Union who
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 5th November, 1986, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following Recommendation:
" It is extremely difficult to determine whether or not a shop
steward is the subject of discrimination because on the one
hand that person has a high profile before management and, on
the other, the person may expect some tolerances in work
performance through being a shop steward.
In this case as a compromise I am recommending that the
letter of 21st July, 1986, be amended by deleting the second
paragraph and that the amended letter be deemed to have
expired by now."
The Union appealed against that Recommendation to the Labour Court
in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 11th February, 1987, in
Monaghan.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) There was no justification for a serious written
warning. It should either be withdrawn or replaced
with a verbal warning. The quality standard on the
job is a subjective matter and varies greatly
depending on which management person checks the work.
The other examiners, who produced similar quality
work, received a verbal warning.
(ii) The Worker rejects the Company's unsubstantiated
assertion that her work was substandard. The Company
is trying to intimidate the worker because she is a
shop steward. The Worker has been the Union's shop
steward for the five years the Union has had
representation with the Company.
(iii) The Worker does not expect any special treatment
because she is a shop steward. The Company treated
the Worker differently by giving her a written
warning and an informal verbal warning to the other
examiners for a similar standard of work.
(iv) The warning relates to a period when systems were
changed, with new equipment being introduced which
was intended to remove threads. There was continuous
conflict between workers and the Company over quality
standards and the non-achievement of the intended
goals of the new machinery. The nub of the problem
was that the machines were not removing threads as
they were intended to do.
(v) The recommended compromise of deleting the second
paragraph from the warning letter is not acceptable,
because it leaves the warning for this alleged
offence, justified and upheld. The letter of warning
should be withdrawn because it is unwarranted and
discriminatory.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company trades in a highly competitive market. It
is important that each garment is of high quality. The
dispatch of unacceptable garments could lead to the
loss of an account.
(b) The Company is flexible in its application of the
disciplinary procedures. The Company would only issue
a written warning if it was necessary. The Company's
flexible approach can be seen from the fact that no
other worker has received a written warning for poor
quality work although some have been verbally warned
and have subsequently improved.
(c) The Company did not discriminate against the Worker.
It treats all its workers equally. If any worker
consistently passes bad work then that worker will be
liable for the same disciplinary measures.
(d) The Company does not want to be unfair or unreasonable
to any of its staff. It had made an offer to reduce
the effective term of the warning to three months but
the Union did not accept it. Had the Company's offer
or the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation been
accepted the lifespan of the written warning would now
have expired.
(e) It was clear to the Company that the Worker continued
to pass poor quality work even after she had been
spoken to and warned on many occasions. The Company
was justified in issuing the written warning.
DECISION:
6. The Court is concerned that the fact that the issue of a
warning in this case has given rise to accusations of
discrimination or conspiracy against the shop steward and the
consequences on industrial relations in the plant, which clearly
are otherwise excellent.
On the other hand quality of the Company's product is obviously of
paramount importance and the Company cannot be inhibited from
dealing with faults in this area simply by virtue of a person's
office or position.
On the balance of the information presented the Court, as did the
Rights Commissioner, accepts that the warning was warranted and is
of the opinion therefore that the Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
The Court further recommends that the parties meet and seek
agreement on a procedure on the issue of warnings which would in
the future avoid the possibility of accusations of bad faith on
anybody's part.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
27th March, 1987 ------------------
T.O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.