Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88357 Case Number: LCR11928 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of one driver to have an appeal against one week's suspension heard by the Company's Disciplinary Appeals Board.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the delay in submitting the appeal in
writing arose through error. The Court recommends that in the
particular circumstances of this case the appeal should be
allowed.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88357 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11928
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of one driver to have an appeal
against one week's suspension heard by the Company's Disciplinary
Appeals Board.
BACKGROUND:
2. The driver in question was suspended for one week following an
accident on 9th September, 1987, in the Drogheda Depot yard. At
the conclusion of the local disciplinary hearing, which set the
penalty, the driver's shop steward said that the penalty would be
appealed. However, no formal written appeal was submitted within
7 days as required under the appeals procedure. The Union claims
that in the past, verbal appeals were accepted in the area. The
Union were awaiting the appeals hearing when they were informed
that the week's suspension would be imposed as no written appeal
had been lodged. The Union wrote to the Company requesting an
appeal in view of the fact that a verbal appeal had been lodged on
the day of the local disciplinary hearing. The Board's Assessor
on the Appeals Board informed the Union that since no written
appeal was lodged "an appeal of the case in question cannot now be
brought before the Appeals Board." On 24th February, 1988, the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. As no agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 12th April, 1988, the matter was referred on
11th May, 1988, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 8th June, 1988, in
Dundalk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that in some cases verbal appeals have
been accepted without complaint. Knowing this if the Company
wanted to have rigidity, at least it should have been made
known locally. Where appeals are lodged in writing they are
usually on a slip of plain paper, (details provided to the
Court).
2. A similar position existed in Cork where a penalty was
imposed on 5th June, 1986, and due to some confusion an appeal
was not lodged until 29th July, 1986. That appeal was
accepted and dealt with.
3. The Union is at a loss to know what change has taken place
in the meantime, bearing in mind that 99% of appeals are
lodged in time. As the Union is part of the Appeal Scheme it
is entitled to know if some change in the rigidity of lodging
appeals is now in force.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's internal Disciplinary Procedures have been
agreed with the Trade Unions. These Procedures have been a
long time in existence and have certainly stood the test of
time. The Company does not accept that there has been any
departure from the provisions laid down in the procedures and
a detailed examination of the Appeal cases for Drogheda has
confirmed this. The Company could not agree to accept a
situation which could lead to the procedures' effectiveness
being diluted or diminished in any way.
2. The Company considers that the requirement for the
submission of appeals in writing within 7 days is very
important to uphold and would consider a departure from this
in any way to be a serious matter of concern for the upholding
of the Procedures for the future. For instance in a situation
where an employee has been give 7 days notice of dismissal,
careful attention is given to see if an appeal against the
dismissal is submitted in writing because, if not, the
employee's employment is terminated at the end of the 7 days.
If an appeal is submitted in writing, the dismissal is not
enforced until the appeal is heard.
3. The Company is concerned that any departure from the
provisions of the Disciplinary Procedures would damage the
creditability of the procedures and lead to their
ineffectiveness in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the delay in submitting the appeal in
writing arose through error. The Court recommends that in the
particular circumstances of this case the appeal should be
allowed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
4th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.