Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88586 Case Number: AD8862 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KLINGE & COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 151/88 concerning the issue of a warning letter to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having regard to all the factors listed in the
Company's letter of the 6th November, 1987, is of the view that
the Company did not act unreasonably in issuing the Stage 2
warning. The Court therefore upholds the Company's appeal in this
regard.
The Court, however, would recommend to the parties that they have
early discussions with a view to agreeing a definitive life span
for the various stages of the disciplinary procedure.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88586 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6288
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: KLINGE & COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 151/88 concerning the issue of a warning
letter to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the issue of a warning letter by the
Company to the worker on the 6th November, 1987. This letter was
issued under stage 2 of the agreed disciplinary procedure. The
Company claims that the employee:-
- failed to provide monthly returns on engineering stores
items,
- lost Company stock sheets which resulted in an
unsuccessful stock take in September, 1987,
- did not process receipts on the purchase order file,
- failed to specify parts on the requisition forms, parts
codes on material transfer slips, and
- failed to process material transfer slips on the computer.
As a result of this negligence there were major discrepancies
between the worker's stock valuation, and that of the Company's
accounts department. The Company also claimed that the employee
allowed liberal access to the main engineering stores despite
having been specifically requested to keep those stores out of
bounds to all unauthorised personnel. The Company further claimed
that there was a general untidiness in the engineering stores, and
that a store room allocated for storing hoses, ducting etc, was
permanently open, unlocked, and disorderly. The Union rejected
the Company's claims but as no agreement was reached in
discussions at local level the dispute was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation on the 10th
June, 1988. On the 19th June, 1988 the Rights Commissioner issued
his recommendation as follows:-
"... The Company has indicated that there is now only
one other key holder to the stores, although it is
still not quite clear to me how many others have
the right to issue from the stores. This should be
cleared up between the parties in order to avoid
confusion as to where responsibility lies for
discrepancies which may arise in stock in future.
In the circumstances, that there were other key
holiders, I cannot see how, in equity, the claimant
can be held entirely responsible for security.
There must have been considerable disruption to
normal stores routine, and on that basis, some
routine procedures may have been inadvertantly
neglected. In all the circumstances I recommend
that the claimant be given the benefit of the doubt
and that the 2nd stage warning should be deleted
from his record. I also recommend that the parties
consider the adoption of a finite period for such
warnings."
The Company rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, and
on the 20th of July, 1988 appealed it to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place in Tralee on the 29th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that the issue of this letter is most
unfair because the worker is not the only person in possession
of keys (others include the manager and security staff) and
some of the charges made by the Company are not, in the
Union's view, correct. The Rights Commissioner who
investigated the case, recommended that the letter be
withdrawn by the Company.
2. Since the issue of the warning there has been a major
change in organisation of the engineering stores, and the
Union has been advised that the holding of keys is now under
tighter control. The employee's performance has improved, not
as a result of the warning, but as a result of the tightening
up of security relating to access to the engineering stores.
The Company now has no cause for complaint, and the letter is
in any event almost one year old, and should be withdrawn
since the life span of any warning should be no more than one
year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The stage 2 warning in the disciplinary procedure is a
very serious step for the Company to take, and reflects an
ongoing failure on the part of the employee to improve his
performance. The specific warning issued to the worker in
November, 1987 was a lengthy detailed summary of the aspects
of the employee's performance which were below the standard
required by the Company. The Rights Commissioner, in his
findings concentrated on the stores security aspect of the
warning and failed to take note of the other serious charges
outlined by the Company, under the headings reporting/record
keeping, housekeeping, absenteeism and breaches of the
flexi-time system (referred to in the stage 1 warning). The
Court should note that stock sheets (referring to
reporting/record keeping), which are Company property, were
produced at the Rights Commissioner's hearing and this was the
first time that the Company had sight of these documents at
any stage. Such a situation is not acceptable, and should
have been noted and, therefore, influenced the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation. The Company made it clear to
the Rights Commissioner that the key holders to the store are
the worker, the manager and security staff. The difficulties
which arose with stock control and the issue of goods from
stores, resulted from the employee's poor performance which
was detailed in the stage 2 warning.
2. The Company did not accept the position that "some routine
procedures may have been inadvertently neglected." The
warning accurately reflects the situation which existed at the
time it was issued and had the desired effect of leading to a
considerable improvement in the worker's performance. The
Company therefore cannot accept that such a serious situation
as existed should be disregarded, and a stage 2 warning in the
disciplinary procedure be deleted after a relatively short
period. The Company is not opposed to the adoption of a
finite period for warnings. However, the need to take
disciplinary action to the stage 2 level is very serious, and
the Company does not accept the dismissing of its case by the
Rights Commissioner. The Company believes that the findings
and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner more accurately
reflect the submission made by the Union on the day than the
content of the stage 2 warning, and therefore believes it
necessary to appeal to the Court to reverse that decision.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having regard to all the factors listed in the
Company's letter of the 6th November, 1987, is of the view that
the Company did not act unreasonably in issuing the Stage 2
warning. The Court therefore upholds the Company's appeal in this
regard.
The Court, however, would recommend to the parties that they have
early discussions with a view to agreeing a definitive life span
for the various stages of the disciplinary procedure.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
17th October,__1988
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.