Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88335 Case Number: AD8844 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS EUROPE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW54/88, concerning the discipline of a worker.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the warning stands and that the worker is
transferred back to Instructor Grade after a period of three
months.
(The worker concerned and the Supervisor were mentioned by name in
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
4. The recommendation was unacceptable to Company, however, it
was prepared to implement the spirit of the recommendation by
restoring the worker to his former pay grade, ensuring he would
suffer no loss of earnings. The Company was not prepared to
restore him to his former job. This was unacceptable to the Union
and on 2nd May, the Company appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Appeal was heard on 15th June, 1988, in Letterkenny.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Regardless of whatever arguments put forward to justify
the worker's actions, the fact remains and this fact was
recognised by the Rights Commissioner, that the worker
committed an act of serious misconduct. He does not deny this
and has stated "I pushed him from me and told him I did not
want to speak to him and pushed him to the door of the locker
room." Other statements taken by the Company during its
investigation verify this fact.
2. If the worker had a complaint about the way he was treated
by the Supervisor he should have dealt with the complaint
through the normal grievance procedure, instead of taking the
law into his own hands.
3. The Company's right to deal with incidents of this nature
must be protected otherwise anarchy could become the norm.
The worker could have been dismissed, due to the seriousness
of the incident, however, the Company decided to adopt a more
lenient approach because of his previous good record.
4. As a result of this incident the bond of trust has been
irretrievably broken down and as the Company no longer has
confidence in the worker's ability to display the necessary
qualities for the important job of Instructor. It had no
option but to transfer him back to Operator Grade. Since the
incident the worker has been permanently replaced as
Instructor on his shift.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Since the issuing of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation the worker concerned has been working at
'doffing." This is the most basic of jobs available, which
would normally be carried out by new workers before they are
moved onto something else.
2. He was replaced on a temporary basis as Instructor pending
the outcome of the appeal against the disciplinary action
taken by the Company. It is now only fair that he be returned
to his former position.
3. It is wrong for the Company to adopt their present stance
in relation to a worker who has had a clear record, who the
Company decided to promote and who was singled out to carry
out prestigious tasks outside of training. (Details provided
to the Court). The Company's change of attitude has suddenly
come about because of an incident unrelated to training, which
occurred in a situation where all concerned were fatigued.
4. The Company say they have lost confidence in his ability
to train. What about the Supervisor's ability to supervise.
He used foul language and grabbed the worker concerned. The
Rights Commissioner held that the Supervisor contributed to
the incident by provoking the worker.
5. The worker concerned has received a final written warning
and he has lost £200 in wages, which is sufficient punishment
for an isolated incident that the Union believes will not be
repeated.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the circumstances of the case,
concurs with the Rights Commissioner that permanent exclusion of
the worker concerned from the position of Training Instructor is
inappropriate. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended to provide that
the worker concerned be transferred back to Instructor Grade on
1st September, 1988. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88335 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4488
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS EUROPE LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW54/88, concerning the discipline of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a Training
Instructor. On the night shift of 21st January, 1988, his
Supervisor complained to him that he started the 'end count' too
soon and as a result other workers had ceased work approximately
20 minutes too early. The Company maintains that the worker got
annoyed at being blamed and stormed out of the Supervisor's office
and went to the locker room. The Supervisor decided to sort out
the problem there and then in line with Company policy and
therefore followed him to the locker room, where the Company
maintain the Supervisor was physically and verbally attacked. The
worker refutes this, saying that the Supervisor was agitated,
appeared aggressive , used swear words and accused the worker of
'walking about like an old woman.' This was done in front of
other workers. The worker further maintains that the Supervisor
followed him to the locker room and grabbed him from behind,
ordering him to the office. Feeling threatened he pushed the
Supervisor away from him at which stage other workers intervened.
The worker concerned was suspended on full pay, pending an
investigation by the Company. Following investigation the Company
decided to issue the worker with a final written warning for
serious misconduct which would last for 12 months, after which
time it would be removed from the records. In addition, it was
decided to transfer him from Instructor Grade back to Operator
Grade because the Company had lost confidence in his ability to
set example to other workers. This was not acceptable to the
union and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation.
3. On 24th March, 1988, the Rights Commissioner issued the
following findings and recommendation.
"Findings
The incident in question occurred in the locker room where at
approximately 7.00 a.m. on Friday morning 22 January, the
Company maintained that the worker pushed his Supervisor out
of the room. There is no doubt that the worker behaved in an
unacceptable manner towards the Supervisor. The question is
whether, in view of earlier circumstances, it could be
considered that the worker was provoked when he was tense and
tired. I have no doubt that the Company acted responsibly
and reasonably with respect to the incident and its
investigation.
Conversely, the discipline imposed may seem too severe in
view of the worker's previous record and regarding an
incident which need not have happened.
Recommendation
I recommend that the warning stands and that the worker is
transferred back to Instructor Grade after a period of three
months.
(The worker concerned and the Supervisor were mentioned by name in
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
4. The recommendation was unacceptable to Company, however, it
was prepared to implement the spirit of the recommendation by
restoring the worker to his former pay grade, ensuring he would
suffer no loss of earnings. The Company was not prepared to
restore him to his former job. This was unacceptable to the Union
and on 2nd May, the Company appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Appeal was heard on 15th June, 1988, in Letterkenny.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Regardless of whatever arguments put forward to justify
the worker's actions, the fact remains and this fact was
recognised by the Rights Commissioner, that the worker
committed an act of serious misconduct. He does not deny this
and has stated "I pushed him from me and told him I did not
want to speak to him and pushed him to the door of the locker
room." Other statements taken by the Company during its
investigation verify this fact.
2. If the worker had a complaint about the way he was treated
by the Supervisor he should have dealt with the complaint
through the normal grievance procedure, instead of taking the
law into his own hands.
3. The Company's right to deal with incidents of this nature
must be protected otherwise anarchy could become the norm.
The worker could have been dismissed, due to the seriousness
of the incident, however, the Company decided to adopt a more
lenient approach because of his previous good record.
4. As a result of this incident the bond of trust has been
irretrievably broken down and as the Company no longer has
confidence in the worker's ability to display the necessary
qualities for the important job of Instructor. It had no
option but to transfer him back to Operator Grade. Since the
incident the worker has been permanently replaced as
Instructor on his shift.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Since the issuing of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation the worker concerned has been working at
'doffing." This is the most basic of jobs available, which
would normally be carried out by new workers before they are
moved onto something else.
2. He was replaced on a temporary basis as Instructor pending
the outcome of the appeal against the disciplinary action
taken by the Company. It is now only fair that he be returned
to his former position.
3. It is wrong for the Company to adopt their present stance
in relation to a worker who has had a clear record, who the
Company decided to promote and who was singled out to carry
out prestigious tasks outside of training. (Details provided
to the Court). The Company's change of attitude has suddenly
come about because of an incident unrelated to training, which
occurred in a situation where all concerned were fatigued.
4. The Company say they have lost confidence in his ability
to train. What about the Supervisor's ability to supervise?
He used foul language and grabbed the worker concerned. The
Rights Commissioner held that the Supervisor contributed to
the incident by provoking the worker.
5. The worker concerned has received a final written warning
and he has lost £200 in wages, which is sufficient punishment
for an isolated incident that the Union believes will not be
repeated.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the circumstances of the case,
concurs with the Rights Commissioner that permanent exclusion of
the worker concerned from the position of Training Instructor is
inappropriate. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended to provide that
the worker concerned be transferred back to Instructor Grade on
1st September, 1988. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
19th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.0'N./J.C.