Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88729 Case Number: LCR12123 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES |
Disciplinary action against one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes the divergence of views between the parties as to
custom and practice in relation to situations of the kind involved
in Charges 1 and 3. In relation to Charge 2, the Court accepts
that a genuine error could have occurred in the calculation of
mileage.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the proposed
disciplinary action should not be proceeded with.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88729 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12123
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
SUBJECT:
1. Disciplinary action against one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed as a locomotive driver
based in Athlone since 1969. He previously worked for C.I.E. in a
different capacity. The current dispute relates to three charges
made against him as detailed on "Form A" issued to him by
management on 11th November, 1986. This stated that he was
charged with making false entries on his timesheets on three
occasions, as follows:-
" 1. On 1/10/'86 your actual hours on duty were from 15.00
hours to 17.15 hours but you returned 15.00 hours to
24.00 hours thereby claiming 2 hours 20 minutes
overtime payment.
2. On 15/10/'86 the actual mileage worked on your turn
of duty was 148 but you returned 156 miles, thereby
claiming an additional .50 hour mileage payment.
3. On 24/10/'86 you were discharged from the Medical
Department, Transport House after scheduled eyesight
examination at 12.30 hours. You should have
travelled home per 14.00 p. with a booking of
09.05/15.55. You returned a booking of 09.05/19.20
thereby claiming 3 hours 35 minutes overtime
payment."
(In relation to charge 1 the worker was rostered for nine
hours on the day in question. He attended a meeting called
by management at 3 p.m. and went home, with permission, at
approximately 5.15 p.m., when the meeting concluded.)
In accordance with the agreed disciplinary procedures, a hearing
into the matter was held by the then Assistant Area Rail Manager
on 2nd December, 1986. The worker and a Trade Union Official
attended. Under the Staff Relations disciplinary machinery
management issued "Form B" to the worker stating that the penalty
to be imposed on the worker would be one week's suspension from
duty and a warning regarding his future behaviour. The worker
appealed this penalty and the appeal was heard by the Area Rail
Manager, Galway on 9th January, 1987. On 14th January, 1987 the
Area Rail Manager wrote to the Union stating that he was prepared
to reduce the proposed punishment to three days' suspension from
duty. The worker wrote to the locomotive foreman in Athlone on
20th January, 1987, stating that he wished to appeal against this
decision. The Area Rail Manager wrote to the Union on 23rd
January stating that there was no scope for further appeal in this
case. The Union referred the matter, on 24th February, 1987 to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 6th January, 1988. (The parties did not
contact the Court between March and November, 1987). This
conference was adjourned. Subsequently the Industrial Relations
Officer of the Court retired from office and on 8th March, 1988
the Union wrote to the Court seeking another conciliation
conference. A conference was held on 7th April, 1988 under the
chairmanship of another Industrial Relations Officer. On 25th
April the Industrial Relations Officer wrote to the parties
stating:-
"I refer to the conciliation conference held on the 7th
April, 1988 concerning the disciplinary charges involving
Mr. X. Having considered the situation and taking fully
into account the submissions made by both parties the
Industrial Relations Officer is of the opinion that, while
the Company found it necessary to present the charges,
perhaps the penalty was too severe and so suggests the
suspension be reduced to a one day suspension. Further that
the warning served on the worker as a result of the charge
sheet being presented, should die after a 12 month period.
The Union should accept this position as final.
This proposal was made on the basis that both parties agree
to take it back and recommend it for acceptance to their
respective principals, otherwise this proposal falls and the
position will revert to that obtaining before the
conciliation conference i.e. three day suspension."
This proposal was not acceptable to the worker or the Company and
the Union sought a full hearing of the Labour Court. The Company
however was not agreeable to the referral as stated in its letter
dated 9th August, 1988, to the Industrial Relations Officer of the
Court. On 19th September, 1988 the Union referred the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court hearing took place on 18th October, 1988, in
Ballinasloe.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Charge 1:
The worker was on a nine hour roster on the day in question.
It is customary for a driver attending a meeting called by
management to receive permission to go home after the meeting
(since there would be no work for him to do) and to be paid
for his rostered hours. Due to his nine hour roster the
worker was entitled to two hours and twenty minutes overtime
on this date. The Union is not aware of any situation where a
locomotive driver would volunteer to come off his rostered
turn of duty to attend a meeting and consequently suffer a
loss in earnings.
2. Charge 2:
The worker inadvertently submitted an incorrect mileage claim.
When the error was pointed out to him he corrected it. The
Union has never previously come across a situation where a
chargesheet was issued for a mistake in calculations.
3. Charge 3:
Under the terms of the Locomotive Drivers Disability scheme,
drivers are required to undergo periodic medical examinations.
On the day in question the worker was required to attend the
company's Chief Medical Officer in Dublin. His rostered time
was 9.05 a.m. to 3.55 p.m. (ten minutes longer than the
standard day). He was to travel from Athlone to Dublin by
train for his medical examination at 11.30 a.m. and return
again by train. Due to traffic congestion in Dublin he was
late for his appointment and did not leave the office of the
Chief Medical Officer until approximately 12.55 p.m. He then
had lunch for which he had received an allowance. It was too
late for him to catch the 2.00 p.m. train to Athlone and he
caught the next train at 5.15 p.m. He signed off duty at
7.20 p.m. The Union considers that it is not reasonable to
expect that the worker would travel to Dublin and back, attend
the medical examination and have lunch all in a period of six
hours and forty minutes. Since this incident drivers have
been rostered to take the 9 a.m. train for such appointments
rather than the 9.29 train which this worker was rostered to
take.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issue in dispute has been fully dealt with through
the disciplinary machinery which has been agreed between the
Company and the trade unions. As provided for in these
procedures the offences with which the worker was charged were
the subject of two hearings before the appropriate Company
officials. At both these hearings the worker was accompanied
by a trade union official and full discussion took place on
the matters concerned. The appeal of the original decision
resulted in a reduction in the period of suspension imposed
from one week to three days.
2. The Company at all times wishes to see the agreed
disciplinary machinery upheld. It is for this reason that it
is not Company policy to refer matters which have been
processed through this machinery to a third party.
3. The Company does not accept that the worker's actions in
relation to Charges 1 and 3 were in keeping with custom and
practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes the divergence of views between the parties as to
custom and practice in relation to situations of the kind involved
in Charges 1 and 3. In relation to Charge 2, the Court accepts
that a genuine error could have occurred in the calculation of
mileage.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the proposed
disciplinary action should not be proceeded with.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
16th November, 1988 ---------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman