Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87105 Case Number: AD8736 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CADBURY (I) LTD - and - FWUI |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW 82/85.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made the Court does not consider
that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation should be changed.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87105 THE LABOUR COURT AD36/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 36 OF 1987
Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CW 82/85.
Background:
2. On 28th November, 1984, three workers, one of whom is the
individual concerned in this case, were found by a plant manager
playing a game of cards in the C block canteen at a time when
according to the Company they should have been working. There
were also a number of other people in the canteen at the time, who
were drinking tea or reading newspapers. The Union claims that it
is accepted albeit unofficial practice for the workers to relieve
each other for such "unofficial breaks." The Company contends
that only unofficial toilet breaks are allowed, and that to be in
the canteen during work-time is a serious breach of trust and
discipline. The three individuals who were found playing cards,
were given a two day suspension. The worker here concerned
contested the matter, alleging that the three who were playing
cards were singled out for unfair discipline. The matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation who
on 19th June, 1985 issued the following recommendation in the
matter. "I recommend that (the worker) and the Union accept that
the discipline imposed was reasonable and should stand". On 22nd
January, 1987, the Union, on behalf of the worker appealed the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on April 13, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Since the inception of the Company's re-organisation
programme back in 1976, it is the custom and practice
of workers to have toilet breaks or rest periods.
Effectively what this means is that once the plant is
fully manned individual members can avail of the above
mentioned breaks, without disruption to the production
line. Some workers avail of these short breaks by
going to the rest room and toilets. Some workers go
for a cup of tea. This is accepted by Management and
is regarded as being the norm and an every day
occurrence in Cadbury's.
(ii) Early in 1985, eleven (11) of the workforce were in the
canteen on one of these breaks, some were having a cup
of tea while others were reading either papers or
books. Three of the workers were playing a game of
cards. A shift manager came into the canteen and he
immediately challenged the three people playing cards
informing them they were suspended for two (2) days.
None of the other workers present were either
challenged or penalised. The only people punished were
the three members who were playing the friendly game of
cards. There was no gambling involved, the game was as
stated "a friendly game" to overcome the boredom for a
couple of minutes.
(iii) The manager involved is extremely concerned about
gambling, for good reason it would appear, as some
years back there were heavy gambling sessions after
finishing time on the night shift. However, the
practice has long since ceased and the manager's
suspicions were ill founded as there was no gambling
involved and therefore no reason for our member to be
suspended. On previous occasions similar occurrences
were dealt with by the issuing of a warning and telling
the people involved to leave the canteen.
(iv) On this occasion there was no warning given just an
immediate suspension which the Union feels is a bit
unfair. The Company did however relent slightly in the
intervening period by suggesting at local level that
it would reduce the punishment from one of suspension
to a written warning. The worker refused to accept
this as he maintains he did no wrong and deserves no
punishment.
(v) The worker has not transgressed in any way, and
therefore should not be suspended for any period no
matter how short. The worker feels extremely
self-righteous about the proposed suspensions as he
feels himself that he did no wrong. This can be borne
out by the fact that he would not even accept the
written warning. The Union is requesting the Court
to support its claim that the Company not implement the
proposed suspension of the worker.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Being absent from one's place of work without
permission is a serious breach of the rules and
conditions of employment. In this case the offence was
made even more serious by the fact that the men were
playing cards.
(b) Absence from one's place of work without permission has
always been viewed as a serious offence because of the
difficulties it can create for the efficient running
and management of the factory. In addition, payment
was being made for these hours on the basis of the men
being at work.
(c) The disciplinary action taken by the Company has been
well established in the past for this type of offence
and has been upheld by a Rights Commissioner in another
case, (Ref. No. CM/13,532). However, it has also been
accepted in many similar cases without dispute.
(d) All three employees initially accepted the suspension.
The worker was the only one to alter his initial
position and dispute it. As explained, one of the two
employees who accepted the warning is also a member of
the F.W.U.I., the other is a member of another union.
(e) The Company would ask the Court to uphold the
disciplinary action taken by the Company, and the
established disciplinary action for this type of
offence.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made the Court does not consider
that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation should be changed.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
________________________
Deputy Chairman
7th May, 1987
P.F./J.C.