Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87709 Case Number: LCR11483 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - AEU |
Claim on behalf of two fitter's against a one day's suspension with loss of pay.
Recommendation:
8. The Court does not consider any valid grounds exist in support
of the Union appeal against the disciplinary action imposed by the
Company and does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87709 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11483
SECTION 20(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11483
Parties: IRISH RAIL
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two fitter's against a one day's suspension
with loss of pay.
Background:
2. On 22nd February, 1986 the two fitters carried out a service
on a locomotive which on the following day travelled from Dublin
to Tralee and back. On its return the locomotive was serviced and
it was discovered that a brake gear was hanging down and that the
pin which holds the brake gear in place was missing.
3. The operations engineer investigated the incident and
interviewed both fitters and the foreman in charge of the shift.
The workers stated that they had carried out a full service
according to the specification and that they had inspected the
pins from within the pit under the locomotive. As the service
specification stipulates that the inspection be carried out by a
ground level walk-around of the locomotive, the workers were
issued with a charge under the C.I.E. Shop Workers Disciplinary
Procedure of neglect of duty.
4. A hearing was held and the workers stated that they were able
to properly check the brake pins from under the pit and had also
used a chair where necessary. (A demonstration was also carried
out). Following this, the two fitters were given a two day
suspension without pay. The workers appealed against this
decision and the appeal was heard on 28th March, 1986. The
suspension was reduced to one day without pay.
5. The matter was then referred to the Rights Commissioner's
service but the Company refused to attend and on 4th September,
1986 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The
Company declined an invitation to attend a conciliation
conference. On 15th September, 1987 the Union referred the matter
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation. The
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 19th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) According to the service check sheet (details supplied
to the Court), the appropriate instruction in this case
is for a visual check of brake gear and hangers. The
list of the Maynard Work Study (details supplied to the
Court) gives the times allocated for service work and
for this class of vehicle the time allocated is only 66
minutes. There are two bogies on each locomotive, each
carries 24 brake hangers held together by 36 bolts and
nuts with split pins. There are also 12 pins which are
held in with locking plates that are held in by two set
screws each. All of these have to be checked along
with carrying out the other work listed on the service
sheets.
(ii) The workers by carrying out the service in the manner
they did not only gave a visual check as required but a
physical one also and a number of brake pins can only
be checked underneath the vehicle. For those areas not
directly visible a chair was used to check them. It is
easier and safer to check from the ramp situation.
There were no visible faults when the locomotive left
the service area.
(iii) Management brought forward no evidence to show that a
proper service had not been carried out. At the appeal
the workers were told that the charge could not be
dropped as a previous incident had occurred. Each case
should stand or fall on its own merits.
(iv) Management have imposed a heavy fine on the workers,
and it would be more appropriate if more time was put
into improving maintenance. The attitude of management
to the maintenance area can be judged by the decline in
the number of fitters. The charge against the workers
should be dropped and they should be refunded for loss
of earnings.
Company's arguments:
7. (a) It is essential that the highest standards of
workmanship are maintained and safety is the most
important aspect of maintenance work. The consequences
of brakegear falling off a locomotive at 90 m.p.h.
would be disastrous as derailment could occur.
(b) The workers did not carry out the service in accordance
with the specification laid down which requires the
checking of brake gear at ground level. It is not
possible to carry out such a check from the pit as many
of the brake pins are not visible at this level, nor
does the use of a chair improve the situation. This
was shown to be the case in the demonstration carried
out.
(c) The Company has a thorough and fair disciplinary
procedure which was used on this occasion. It is clear
that the fitters did not properly service the
locomotive and the appeal against the penalty imposed
should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court does not consider any valid grounds exist in support
of the Union appeal against the disciplinary action imposed by the
Company and does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__29th___October,__1987. ___________________
U. M. / J. C. Deputy Chairman