Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87829 Case Number: AD884 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/17981 concerning the demotion of a worker from chargehand to machine operator.
Recommendation:
10. The Court considers that there is some merit in the appeal.
Nevertheless the Court is of the view that the claimant should be
given a final chance.
Accordingly the Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation be amended to extend the experimental period for a
period of 2 years starting from the date of the Rights
Commissioner's report.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87829 DECISION NO. AD488
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CM/17981 concerning the demotion of a worker from chargehand to
machine operator.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was a chargehand in the Big Machine Shop
and controlled the activity of a "team within his section". On
3rd April, 1987, the Company wrote to the worker seeking his
resignation as chargehand and gave several reasons for the request
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company did not receive any reply to the letter and on
25th May, 1987, it again wrote to the worker informing him that he
was being demoted from chargehand to machine operator with effect
from 1st July, 1987, and that his rate of pay would be adjusted
accordingly from that date.
4. The Union wrote to the Company on 11th June, 1987, challenging
the points raised in its letter of 3rd April and 25th May, 1987,
and stating that the Company was in breach of the grievance
procedure.
5. Following further correspondence the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on the 6th August, 1987, where it was agreed
to refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation.
6. The dispute was investigated on 2nd September, 1987, and 8th
October, 1987. Following the investigation the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation -
"It seems that the worker had developed a resentment against
at least two of his superiors because of what he perceived as
harassment of himself. This was his own subjective
conclusion but there was no foundation for it. Instead of
seeking relief through the sensible course of invoking Union
intervention he hit back at the Company in the various
situations and manner described by the FUE and then became
the subject of deserved and necessary discipline by
Management culminating in the proposal to demote him.
Demotion can be more humiliating even than dismissal because
the person now becomes one of those whose superior he
previously was and because it hits him in his pocket as well
as his pride.
For the foregoing reasons the Company ought give him a chance
(a) to realise fully that he has been wrong and (b) to prove
that he is capable of rendering an effective service as
chargehand.
Consequently they should allow him to continue as chargehand,
in his present or in another department, for an experimental
period of six months starting from now. During and at the
end of that period he would be assessed; if he is
satisfactory he would be confirmed in his position, if not
the Company's decision of 25th May, 1987, would be
implemented".
7. The Company appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Carlow on 14th
December, 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has rejected the Recommendation because it
would appear that the Rights Commissioner's remedy is based
on sentiment rather than the facts which in his
recommendation he accepts gives the management right to
demote.
2. In the first paragraph of his recommendation he does not
accept that the worker was harrassed. Indeed, he states that
it was a subjective judgement which has no facts to support
it.
3. In that same paragraph the Rights Commissioner points out
that the worker did carry out the actions which he is accused
of, which for a mature adult, required to give direction and
leadership through example, cannot be explained away as being
out of character.
4. It is management's belief that in fact the worker acted
completely in character and set out on a deliberate policy
based on his own belief that these managers were not up to
his standard and could not tell him what to do.
5. In rejecting the Recommendation the Company is seeking a
recommendation from the Court upholding the management's
decision to demote the worker.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The worker concerned is a conscientious worker with one
of the best time-keeping and attendance records in the
Company. He was first employed by the Company in 1975 and
promoted in 1979. He has obliged the Company on many
occasions by working unsocial hours.
2. The production on his shift has always been high and he
gets on well with the other workers on his shift. There
appears to be a personality clash between the worker and his
supervisor and for this reason he has been singled out and
has had complaints trumped up against him.
DECISION:
10. The Court considers that there is some merit in the appeal.
Nevertheless the Court is of the view that the claimant should be
given a final chance.
Accordingly the Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation be amended to extend the experimental period for a
period of 2 years starting from the date of the Rights
Commissioner's report.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th January, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman