Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87129 Case Number: AD8733 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CABLELINK LTD - and - ATGWU |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DM/150/86 concerning a final warning issued to a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
agrees with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner which it
upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87129 THE LABOUR COURT AD8733
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 33 OF 1987
Parties: CABLELINK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. DM/150/86 concerning a final warning issued to
a worker.
Background:
2. The Company provides cable television service in Dublin and
the surrounding area to over 200,000 subscribers and employs
approximately 150 workers. The worker concerned in this dispute
is employed as a telephonist in the Company's customers' service
department.
3. On 3rd November, 1986, a customer telephoned the customer
service manager to complain about the manner in which she was
treated by the worker on the telephone on the previous day. It
was discovered that in the course of her dealings with this
customer the worker, when logging the service call on the
computer, had entered a derogatory remark about the customer in
the system. This remark was subsequently printed on the service
docket but was deleted before the docket issued to the serviceman.
4. This incident was considered by the Company to be an act of
gross misconduct and totally unacceptable behaviour. The worker
was suspended without pay and following consideration of the
matter, the Company imposed one week's suspension on her and
issued a final written warning to her.
5. While the Union accepted that had the remark in question been
made public it would have damaged the Company's image, it
nevertheless considered the loss of one week's pay to the worker
should be considered sufficient punishment for the offence and
requested the Company to withdraw the final written warning. In
doing so the Union referred to the worker's good working record
over the past six years. The Company refused to withdraw the
final notice and stated that the worker's performance as a
telephonist in the past had been unsatisfactory. (In support of
this contention the Company referred in its submission to two
alleged incidents in the past involving the worker arising from
a written warning which was issued to her). As no agreement could
be reached between the parties at local level on the question of
the issue of a final written warning to the worker, the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who, having investigated the
dispute issued the following recommendation:
"It seems to me that in the absence of a formal
agreement between the parties on Disciplinary
Procedures, the lack of a "final warning" on this
worker's record would not necessarily inhibit the
Company in imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal,
if it felt in the future that a particular offence
justified that action.
I note that the Company in response to representations
from the Union, substituted a week's suspension and
"final warning" for dismissal. I feel it should go
further now and agree to delete the "final warning." I
so recommend because of the recognition by the Union of
the importance of good customer service and my feeling
that the existence of this "final warning" would be an
unnecessary irritant between Union and Company. I also
feel that the loss of a week's pay already suffered by
this worker is a sufficient penalty."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court, under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 30th March, 1987.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Because of the Company's business and particularly as
the Company holds a monopoly position, customer service
is of major importance and is given a high priority in
the Company. The Company has recently been subjected
to a rigorous examination by the Restrictive Practices
Commission. During their investigation the Commission
focused very heavily on the area of customer service
and in their recommendations stressed the importance of
this particular aspect of the business.
(b) The worker's previous performance and behaviour have
both been unsatisfactory but the incident of entering
derogatory remarks in the computer could not be
regarded as anything less than gross misconduct. In
view of this, the disciplinary action taken against the
worker by the Company regarding this incident was
lenient as the nature of the offence warranted
dismissal.
(c) During the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Union
alleged discrimination against the worker. The Company
refutes such an allegation. The Company's position is
that it had to deal with a very serious breach of
discipline (and this is accepted by the Union) and the
Company is satisfied that it has dealt with the worker
in a fair and equitable manner.
(d) The Union states that the existence of a final written
warning could lead to the worker's dismissal for
trivial offences. However, there would be no question
of the Company dismissing the worker or any other
employee for an offence of a trivial nature.
(e) In his recommendation, the Rights Commissioner places
undue emphasis on the impact of a final written warning
in that it would be an "unnecessary irritant" to
Company/Union relations. The Company rejects this
contention. While harmonious relations between the
Company and unions are important they must not be
allowed to cloud the more important issue of discipline
which is a vital ingredient in the running of a
business.
(f) The Company fully upholds the arguments it put forward
to the Rights Commissioner at his investigation
(details supplied to the Court) and is adamant that
taking account of the serious circumstances involved,
the sanctions applied are necessary, fully justified
and should stand. Therefore taking this, together with
the nature of the Company's business into
consideration, the Company's appeal on this matter
should be upheld.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) The Union accepts that had the incident been made
public the Company's image would have suffered.
However, the suspension imposed on the worker had a
serious affect on her and the Union considers she has
been punished enough through the loss of one week's
pay. Therefore, the final written warning should not
have been imposed on the worker as this might have
serious consequences on the worker's future prospects
in the Company and could lead to her dismissal in the
event of her committing even a trivial offence in the
future.
(ii) Remarks such as those made by the worker are not
unusual and never meant to be derogatory. They are
meant to indicate to the breakdown crew the type of
customer they will be calling to.
(iii) The Union recognises the importance of good customer
relations and has requested staff in the telephone
section never to repeat this type of incident. This
they have agreed to do.
(iv) In all the circumstances the worker has been
sufficiently disciplined and she should not continue to
suffer with a final written warning in her file.
Therefore, the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should be upheld.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
agrees with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner which it
upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman.
11th May, 1987.
T.McC./J.C.