Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88868 Case Number: LCR12189 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union that a one day disciplinary suspension should not be imposed on a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the original half day suspension was fully justified
but is not satisfied that the additional half day imposed on
appeal is warranted in the circumstances.
The Court therefore recommends that the suspension be amended to
one half day.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88868 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a one day disciplinary suspension
should not be imposed on a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute is employed in the
Corporation's paving department as a general operative. In May,
1988 the worker, together with a number of his colleagues, was
interviewed by an acting inspector about an alleged absence from
his workplace. The Corporation alleges that during the interview
the worker was abusive and used strong language. As a result of
the alleged absence from work all the employees concerned had
one half hour's pay deducted from their wages. As a result of the
altercation with the acting inspector, the worker concerned was
suspended for one half day. The Union admits that strong language
was used but contends that it was used by the assistant inspector
as well, and that the whole incident arose because the workers
were aggrieved at being accused of absence from work. The Union
appealed the penalty imposed at local level to the personnel
department, but it was increased to one day's suspension. The
Corporation would not agree to have the matter referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 8th
August, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 23rd
September, 1988. Agreement was not reached, nor was the
Corporation agreeable to having the matter referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. On 1st November,
1988, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court, under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing
took place in Dublin on 1st December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The argument involving the worker arose when the acting
inspector together with the area engineer, arrived at the
workplace on Thursday 12th May, 1988. The inspector called
the mens' supervisor over to his car and accused the group of
being absent from their work the previous evening. The
supervisor denied the charge, and called the workers over to
the car to collaborate his account. Strong language was used,
but not threatening or intimidatory language.
2. The supervisor signed a statement about the events which
took place at the workplace, which back-up the Union's
account. Despite the fact that he was the supervisor of the
gang, the Corporation disregarded his statement. He was never
interviewed, apart from the discussion through the car window.
The Union also received confirmation from the other men in the
gang that the supervisors version of events was correct.
3. The worker did not use language which was intimidatory or
threatening. He used strong language, in a situation where
strong language had first been used to him, and also following
a false accusation of being missing from the job.
4. The worker was unfairly punished. A loss of a day's pay
amounts to approximately #34, inclusive of his allowances, and
nothing that he did justifies this loss. The senior engineer
refused to consider the workers version of the event. The
personnel department also failed to adequately consider his
case. Nevertheless they decided to double the worker's
punishment which is most unusual. In effect, there was an
automatic imposition of a punishment and an automatic
endorsement by Personnel. Then, having realised that the case
had been dealt with in an unfair and heavy-handed way,
Management tried to impede its being heard by a third party.
5. The Union accepts that Dublin Corporation is in a period
of economic difficulty, and that the Corporation must become
more efficient and competitive. This obviously requires an
increase in work output, which means the elimination of
indiscipline and bad work practices. However, the converse is
also true. Because there is pressure at the workplace to
increase production, it is even more essential that disputes
be properly investigated and that procedures be adhered to.
In return for the Union's co-operation, which it had and will
continue to receive, the Corporation must ensure that staff
are treated fairly. The Union requests that the Court
recommend in its favour.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had a good attendance record up to mid 1985
from which period his attendance disimproved to such an extent
that he was interviewed locally in November, 1986 accompanied
by his Union representative, and issued with a written
warning. The worker's attendance record improved subsequent
to this interview but it became necessary to interview him
again on 26th November, 1987 with his Union representative
present, arising from an incident in which he returned from
lunch with another worker at 3.45 p.m., whereas the normal
resumption time is 1.30 p.m. The worker was not allowed to
resume work, as he was judged not fit to do so. As a result
of this incident he was granted one day's special leave
without pay on Monday 7th December, 1987 and warned that if he
was again found absent from work in such circumstances more
serious disciplinary action would be taken.
2. It was in the context of this record that the worker,
accompanied by his Union representative, was interviewed for
the third time on 20th May, 1988, for using abusive language
towards an acting inspector. This arose from the fact that he
and 3 other employees had been absent from their place of work
on the 11th May, and were each deducted one half hour's pay.
During the course of the interview the senior engineer advised
the worker that he considered the language used on the
occasion in question to be intimidatory, given that the acting
inspector was new to the post. In any event, the language
used was insubordinate and the senior engineer decided to
impose a penalty of one half day's suspension.
3. The worker's Union appealed the penalty to the personnel
department. The appeal was considered on 14th June, 1988 in
the presence of the worker and the general secretary of the
Union. It was pointed out to the worker that the acting
inspectors written account of the events had been
substantiated by the senior executive engineer who was present
on the occasion in question. Having considered all aspects of
the case together with the workers past record, it was decided
to increase the penalty to a one day suspension. The
Corporation consider that it was fully justified in its
action, and asks the Court to uphold its decision.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the original half day suspension was fully justified
but is not satisfied that the additional half day imposed on
appeal is warranted in the circumstances.
The Court therefore recommends that the suspension be amended to
one half day.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
22nd December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.