Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88680 Case Number: LCR12129 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the issue of final written warnings to three workers employed at the Bagging Plant.
Recommendation:
7. The Court finds that by refusing to work as directed by
Management the three workers lay themselves open to disciplinary
action. Because there was misunderstanding as to what was agreed
with a shop steward the Court feels that the final warning should
be deemed to lapse on 31st December, 1988.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88680 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12129
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the issue of final written warnings to
three workers employed at the Bagging Plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was founded in 1981 is engaged in the
compost production mushroom growing and mushroom processing
business. It is Ireland's largest mushroom supplier and gives
employment in the Monaghan area both directly and indirectly to
720 people. There are 170 workers directly employed. The Company
exports all its output mainly to U.K. supermarket chains.
3. On the evening of Friday 22nd April, 1988 the Company
requested with the agreement of a shop steward, a worker on the
day shift to work overtime on the evening shift to cover for an
absent employee. The worker agreed and reported for duty to do
the job bagging off. The three workers concerned were requested,
when they each reported for duty, to work on the lorry building on
the bags of compost. They refused to work on this duty as they
maintained that the worker coming on overtime should not work on
the bagging machine but on the lorry. The workers were requested
to work under protest until the matter could be resolved but
refused to do so. The Company subsequently issued the workers
concerned with final written warnings.
4. At a meeting held on 3rd May, 1988 the Union sought to have
these warnings rescinded. The Company maintained that the
warnings should stand. The matter was then referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 4th July, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on 31st August, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Monaghan on 26th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union considers that there were mitigating
circumstances in this case. Firstly there was no precedent on
this shift for the arrangement being forced on the workers
that day. The first worker to be approached indicated that he
did not consider it fair that a person coming in who had less
service and was a temporary worker, could choose what work to
be on. He also indicated that there was a person available
who would be willing to come in and fill the vacant position.
He was also unaware of any agreement being reached with the
shop steward. (The shop steward in question had gone home at
the time of the incident).
2. It is the Union's opinion that the supervisor then made
the wrong decisions which gave rise to the whole situation.
He failed to see the genuine grievance held by the first
worker. He then extended the problem by involving the other
two workers instead of containing it. Had wiser managerial
skills being used i.e. availing of the options open to him
(details supplied to the Court) instead of adopting a position
of confrontation the whole incident would not have arisen.
3. The workers concerned had exemplary employment records.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers refused to work under protest even though on
previous occasions the Managing Director had advised the
workers employed in that particular area, including the
workers here concerned, that if they disagreed with a
Management decision they should work under protest while the
dispute was being processed through the grievance procedure.
2. The workers action was in the Company's view, unofficial
industrial action. In the circumstances the Company would
have been within its rights to dismiss the workers, but
instead issued final written warnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court finds that by refusing to work as directed by
Management the three workers lay themselves open to disciplinary
action. Because there was misunderstanding as to what was agreed
with a shop steward the Court feels that the final warning should
be deemed to lapse on 31st December, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
18th November, 1988. Chairman
M.D./J.C.