Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87409 Case Number: LCR11684 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TARA MINES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Letters of warning to shift bosses.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that, having regard to the duties and
responsibilities of the positions involved, the Company's action
is fully warranted, and does not therefore recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87409 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11684
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Letters of warning to shift bosses.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 12th September, 1986 an unofficial dispute took place in
Tara Mines, involving the miners, who vacated the mine. On that
date the mine captain telephoned two shift bosses in the
underground lunchroom asking them to remove a transformer from the
mine immediately stating that this was an emergency situation.
There was not an immediate response to this instruction. The
Union state that the shift bosses intended to have the job done
while management stated that they refused to do the job as it was
not their work. The mine captain then instructed another shift
boss to do the job and he did so. The first two shift bosses were
suspended.
3. In the afternoon of the same day the mine superintendent asked
eight shift bosses to take backfill into the mine in order to
allow the mill to continue and to take a transformer into the mine
to restore necessary ventilation. These instructions were not
carried out.
4. As a result of these incidents the ten shift-bosses received
written warnings. On 29th September, 1986 the Union sought a
meeting to discuss having these warnings withdrawn. Following
discussions at local level the Company withdrew one of the
warnings. It imposed a life span of twelve months on the warnings
to the two shift bosses involved in the first incident and a life
span of six months on the warnings issued to the remaining seven.
The Union did not accept this position and the matter was
referred, on 2nd February, 1987, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 19th August,
1987, the earliest suitable date, failed to resolve the matter and
it was referred, on 25th November, 1987 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 21st January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS;
3. 1. The shift bosses did not refuse to have the instructions
carried out in either incident. The committee of the striking
workers had agreed to provide staff to bring the transformer
to the surface on 12th September, 1986. The Mine Captain was
informed of this and a miner was available to drive the scoop
and bring the transformer to the surface. In relation to the
second incident the Mine Captain was informed that men would
be made available to carry out both jobs and that the jobs
would be supervised.
2. Clause 16.12 of the Comprehensive Agreement states: "In
the event of a work stoppage, key personnel shall, if
required, continue to work their regular shift on a care and
maintenance basis. Key Personnel shall include any or all of
the following personnel at any time:-
1 Cagetender
2 General Equipment Operator/Driver
1 Hoistman
1 Miner to perform general duties as required
and
1 Storeman."
All the shift bosses were advised by the Company that they
must abide by the Comprehensive Agreement at all times. They
were never informed by the Company that clause 16.12 was not
in operation.
3. The transformer had been out of action since the previous
day, yet it only became an emergency on 12th September, 1987.
The Mine Captain claimed the removal of the transformer
constituted an emergency, yet he failed to activate the
emergency procedures.
4. Since the shift bosses in each instance responded to the
instructions issued the Union considers that the letters of
warning should be removed from their files.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The warnings issued by the General Manager were for
serious breaches of discipline. In two of those cases lives
could have been put at risk because it involved refusal to
respond to what was clearly indicated to them to be an
emergency situation.
2. The second refusal could have left an area of the mine
unsafe and forced the mill to shut down. The actions of the
shiftbosses were in breach of the responsibilities vested in
them under the Mines & Quarries Act, 1965.
3. The shiftbosses undergo an intensive training course,
during which they are made totally familiar with their
responsibilities under the legislation. Tuition on the
legislation is given mainly by the Mines Inspector. In
addition the Mines Inspector acts as sole examiner on the
completion of the course.
4. Failure on the part of any official to respond to a
situation which could expose personnel in the mine to any
hazard must be regarded as a serious derogation of their
responsibility. Equally, refusal to carry out a lawful
instruction which results in a financial loss to the Company
is unacceptable. The General Manager must have full
confidence in any Supervisor whom he authorises to deputise
for him.
5. The discipline imposed on the shift bosses was the minimum
possible, given the seriousness of their actions. The Company
is not prepared to withdraw the letter of warning.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that, having regard to the duties and
responsibilities of the positions involved, the Company's action
is fully warranted, and does not therefore recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
11th February, 1988
A.K./J.C. Deputy Chairman