Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88189 Case Number: LCR11810 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
The alleged unfair dismissal of one temporary employee.
Recommendation:
5. The claimant was a temporary employee on a week to week basis
and on probation. He did not therefore have the normal rights
associated with permanent employment. However, the Court
considers it harsh that the claimant was not given any warning
about the alleged departure from instructions especially when
these incidents were not clearly out of line with accepted custom
and practice. The Court therefore recommends that the claimant
be given either a second chance by being re-employed for a further
temporary period or paid up to 20th February, 1988, the date
specified in his letter of appointment.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88189 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11810
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The alleged unfair dismissal of one temporary employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in a temporary capacity as
an assembly operator on Thursday 28th January, 1988. On that date
he was informed, prior to commencing work, of what was expected of
him in this position and that he was not to leave the production
line without the permission of his supervisor. The worker
attended work on that day and the following day. On Monday 1st
February he was informed that his employment was being terminated
from that date. He was paid for the three days worked and also
for four days in lieu of notice. The reason given for the
termination of his employment was that he was not up to the
required standard and that he had been observed "wandering around
the factory." The Union sought to have the worker reinstated, as
the dismissal was considered to be unfair. The Company was not
prepared to alter its decision. The matter was referred, on 16th
February, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences held on 16th February and 23rd February,
failed to resolve the issue and it was referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 31st March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not consider that there were valid reasons
for dismissing this worker. On Friday 29th February, he found
at 4.25 p.m. (five minutes before the end of the shift), that
he had no work to do as the line was slowing down before the
end of production. He commenced other preparatory work which
he was told by another operative was not necessary since there
would be no "twilight" shift that evening. When asked, the
other operative told him it would be alright to get his coat.
He went to the cloakroom where there were 15 to 20 other
operatives and got his coat. A supervisor looked into the
cloakroom at this time. The worker clocked out along with
numerous other operatives. Secondly, on Monday 1st February,
the worker asked his supervisor at 11.10 a.m. for permission
to go to the lavatory. On his way back to the production line
the worker went to the water cooler to get a drink as he
wished to take some tablets for a toothache. There were no
cups there so he went to the canteen, got a cup, and returned
to the water cooler. Having got the water, he returned to the
production line. (The Union provided a diagram of the lay-out
of the plant). The Union presumes that management was
referring to these incidents in making the charge of
"wandering around the factory" and considers that dismissal
arising from these incidents is unfair and completely
unwarranted. The worker's attention was not drawn to either
of the incidents and he was completely taken aback when
informed of his dismissal.
2. Clause 9.2 of the Company/Union Agreement of February,
1987, states:
"Temporary employees will receive the same rates of pay and
will be covered by the same conditions and benefits (in
line with the Union/Company House Agreement) as their
counterparts in permanent employments with the exception of
the specific terms outlined in this clause."
The Union considers that this dismissal is in breach of Clause
9.2. The Union/Company Agreement provides for procedures for
dealing with matters of discipline. It states that all
employees should get "a fair opportunity to rectify any breach
of conduct or performance, plant or safety rules." This
worker was not afforded such an opportunity. The Agreement
also states:
"Prior to any disciplinary action being taken ... the
employee shall be counselled by his/her supervisor and
advised of the deficiency and what must be done to correct
the situation."
The correct procedure was not followed in this case. The
Company has pointed out that the February, 1987, Agreement
provides for "week to week" employment and has stated that
since this employee was employed on this basis it had the
right to sever his contract at any time. The Union points out
that the inclusion in the Agreement of a provision for "week
to week" employment was intended to allow the Company to
respond to the market and was not intended to have any
relation to disciplinary action.
3. The action taken contravenes the "philosophy of corrective
discipline" as outlined in the Company's "Fair Day's Work
Plan," in that it was punitive in nature and was not
corrective in nature.
3. 4. The action taken was also contrary to good industrial
relations practice. The Union considers the decision to
dismiss to be extraordinary in the light of the fact that the
worker was in the employment for only 3 days. The Union is
seeking the reinstatement of the worker and compensation for
time lost. His future employment should be in line with the
terms of the Union/Company Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The conditions of employment were clearly outlined to the
worker at his interview for the position. He was also
informed that due to the nature of the assembly process, it
was essential that all employees be at their work stations
during the full working day exclusive of breaks. On 28th
January, 1988 the worker commenced employment on a temporary
contract on a week to week basis. On the day of commencement
and prior to commencing work, he was again informed that it
was absolutely necessary for employees to be at their work
place at all times (excluding breaks) and up to the end of the
shift. He was informed that if he needed to leave the work
station during normal working hours he would have to have
prior permission from his supervisor and in no other
circumstances was he to leave the work station. Following
this conversation he was allocated to a production area under
a particular supervisor. The supervisor also advised the
worker in relation to remaining at his work station. He
stressed the importance of being at the work station up to the
end of the shift and that no fellow employee had authority to
release the worker from the production line. The worker was
advised that all aspects of his performance would be closely
monitored as his temporary contract could serve as a
probationary period.
2. On Friday 29th January, 1988 (the day after he commenced
employment) the worker left his work area without permission
and was observed in another area of the plant at 11.20 a.m.
approximately. The incident referred to by the Union which
took place on 1st February, 1988, is believed to be a separate
incident. Also on the Friday, he again left his work area
prior to the end of his shift and was observed by a Production
Superintendent in the cloakroom at 4.28 p.m. This would have
meant that he left his station before 4.25 p.m. in breach of
specific instructions. These two incidents were a blatant
disregard of the instruction and advice given to him on the
previous day and were totally unacceptable from a new
employee. As a result of these incidents the Company met with
the worker and his Union representatives on 1st February, 1988
and informed him that in accordance with the terms of his
temporary contract of employment, his employment was being
terminated effective from that date.
3. Given the nature of the process, leaving one's work
station without permission is seen as a most serious offence
even for permanent employees. On a number of occasions
permanent employees who committed these offences have been
subject to disciplinary action for serious misconduct. The
Company has not experienced such a flagrant breach of specific
requirements by any other temporary employees, and there are
certainly no cases of such breaches within two days of the
contract commencing.
4. The Company has over 70 other temporary employees, and as
the period of temporary employment can serve as a probationary
period for permanent posts which may arise, temporary employee
performance is monitored closely. This worker, as a temporary
employee and a probationer was subject to the evaluation
standards applicable to a probationer and the scope of the
Company to sever the contract of a probationer, within the
normal probationary period.
5. The Company believes that given all the circumstances it
fulfilled all its responsibilities to this worker and that the
decision to terminate his contract was a valid one taken
within the provisions of his contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The claimant was a temporary employee on a week to week basis
and on probation. He did not therefore have the normal rights
associated with permanent employment. However, the Court
considers it harsh that the claimant was not given any warning
about the alleged departure from instructions especially when
these incidents were not clearly out of line with accepted custom
and practice. The Court therefore recommends that the claimant
be given either a second chance by being re-employed for a further
temporary period or paid up to 20th February, 1988, the date
specified in his letter of appointment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_________________________
3rd May, 1988. Chairman
A.K./J.C.