Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88490 Case Number: LCR12087 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH FOOD PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - MR. P. MELLY |
Claim by a worker concerning his suspension from work.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds that there was a genuine misunderstanding
between the worker and the Company as to whether or not the worker
had been given a guarantee of 40 hours work every week. This
could have been avoided if he had been given a written statement
of the terms of his contract in accordance with the Minimum Notice
and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
However, it was not reasonable for the worker to expect to be
given a guarantee of 40 hours pay from the supervisor at 10pm on
the evening shift. The correct thing for him to do was to take
the matter up with the manager at a later date.
The worker was suspended pending a discussion with the Managing
Director. Such a discussion has not yet taken place and both
sides must share responsibility for this lapse.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the worker be
offered the next suitable vacancy and that he be paid £200 in
compensation for the Company's responsibility in the matter.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88490 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12087
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH FOOD PRODUCTS LIMITED
AND
AND A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker concerning his suspension from work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
6th July, 1987. (He had previously been employed by the Company
during 1983 and 1984, but had been laid-off). The worker contends
that during his interview for the job he was offered employment on
the basis of a 5 day, 40 hour week, Sunday to Thursday with hours
of work 5pm to 1am. His wages were to be £75 per week. The
worker contends that his hours fluctuated downwards and he could
not be assured of a stable income. He approached the Company's
Managing Director about the matter, who denied that he had been
offered the terms outlined above. It was eventually agreed that
he would work 3 days 24 hours per week and claim minimun Social
Welfare Benefit for the remainder of the week, thereby giving him
stability of income. However, the worker claims that the hours
per week rarely reached the promised 24 hours. He was laid-off
over the Christmas 1987, period. Upon resumption of work in
January, 1988, he met with the Managing Director once more. The
worker maintains that at this meeting the Managing Director
confirmed that he would be given the terms that had been agreed at
the original interview in July, 1987. The worker asked for the
terms in writing and was told that this would be done.
3. On 19th April, 1988, he had finished his baking and his
supervisor told him that she was going home at 11pm and that she
wished him to do likewise. He pointed out that he would be
required to clock-out and that he was not prepared to do this
unless he could be assured that he would not lose wages by doing
so. She could not give any assurance in relation to wages and
agreed to allow him work on until normal finishing time but told
him things would be different on the following day. The following
day when he arrived to work the production manager and supervisor
were waiting for him and the manager asked him why he was giving
trouble to his supervisor on the previous night. He explained his
reasons for not clocking-out early but these were not accepted.
The Managing Director arrived during the course of this interview
and told him to do what his supervisor and production manager told
him. At 10.30 that night he again finished work early. His
supervisor approached him and told him to go home because work was
finished. Had he clocked-out at this point he would have lost 1½
hours wages. The supervisor told him that he either clock-out or
that he would be clocked-out. He refused to clock-out. The
supervisor alleges that the worker threatened her at this time by
saying that if he was clocked-out by the supervisor, she would
hear about it the next day. The following morning he was informed
by the production manager that he was suspended from work as a
result of his conduct the previous night. The worker alleges that
he was given no opportunity to explain his position and was not
told how long he was being suspended for, despite asking. On 15th
June, 1988, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to a
Court hearing in Sligo on 4th October, 1988, (the earliest date
suitable to the Company), the worker agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker accepted the job based on the conditions
outlined to him at his interview. He had the right to expect
a regular week's work and a steady income. He attempted on a
number of occasions to resolve his difficulties by talking
directly to his superiors, but each time an agreement was
reached it was broken. Therefore, when the new agreement was
reached in January, 1988, he had to be particularly vigilant.
Accordingly, he could not afford to clock-out early without an
assurance regarding his pay.
2. The worker was a willing, co-operative and hard worker.
He was prepared to work for a low wage, however, he was not
prepared to allow himself be abused.
3. The reasons for his suspension are invalid. He had a
valid grievance in relation to loss of pay and did not
threaten his supervisor in any way. All he required was a
fair hearing of his grievance.
4. 4. The worker requests that the suspension be declared unfair
and lifted, so that he be allowed to return to work
immediately, that he be paid compensation, including holiday
pay, for the time lost and that the Company give a commitment
regarding pay and hours in the form of honouring the legal
obligation of issuing him with a written contract of
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. On 20th April, 1988 between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m., the
Managing Director spoke with the worker concerned about his
behaviour on the previous night. It was pointed out to the
worker that work would be completed by 10.30 p.m. on the night
of 20th April, and that it would be appreciated if he would
leave with the rest of the staff. He assured the Managing
Director he would. He was also informed that he would get 40
hours per week, if and when it was available.
2. The production manager had to come back to the factory at
10.45 p.m. on the night of 20th April. When she arrived she
found the supervisor in a distressed state after being
threatened by the worker concerned. The worker defied the
production manager to clock him out.
3. The worker concerned was never given a guarantee that he
would work 40 hours per week. His rate of pay was to be the
equivalent of £75 for a 5 day, 40 hour week. He was told that
if the work was available he would get it. He worked the same
hours as the rest of the staff. Prior to January, 1988, his
hours were less than 40 per week, however, since then he has
worked over 40 hours per week (excepting two occasions). If
this unfortunate incident had not occurred he would still be
working over 40 hours per week. In fact the Company is now
operating 24 hours per day with 3 shifts.
4. The worker concerned approached the Managing Director on
21st April, 1988, about his suspension. At the time the
Managing Director was extremely busy and told the worker that
he would take the matter up with him the following week. The
worker subsequently requested his P.45. He never returned to
talk to the Managing Director. As a result the Company
assumed he had left their employment and that the matter was
closed.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court finds that there was a genuine misunderstanding
between the worker and the Company as to whether or not the worker
had been given a guarantee of 40 hours work every week. This
could have been avoided if he had been given a written statement
of the terms of his contract in accordance with the Minimum Notice
and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
However, it was not reasonable for the worker to expect to be
given a guarantee of 40 hours pay from the supervisor at 10pm on
the evening shift. The correct thing for him to do was to take
the matter up with the manager at a later date.
The worker was suspended pending a discussion with the Managing
Director. Such a discussion has not yet taken place and both
sides must share responsibility for this lapse.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the worker be
offered the next suitable vacancy and that he be paid £200 in
compensation for the Company's responsibility in the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John M. Horgan
___25th___October,__1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman