Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88562 Case Number: LCR12009 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Imposition of a disciplinary penalty on one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the employee concerned in this dispute should
suffer a penalty for driving a lorry with a damaged tyre. The
Court also considers that the penalty proposed is too severe.
The Court recommends that the Council drop the proposal to suspend
the employee for one week and that the employee be stood down from
driving duties to general operative duties for a period of two
weeks.
The Court does not recommend payment in respect of the days on
which the employee refused to carry out official instruction.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88562 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12009
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Imposition of a disciplinary penalty on one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a spare driver in the
Council's domestic refuse collection depot at Sandyford,
Co. Dublin. He commenced his employment with the Council in
January, 1985. On 19th May, 1988 the worker drove a refuse
collection vehicle from the Council's tiphead to the depot at
Sandyford, a distance of 3½ miles. For some or all of this
journey the vehicle had a damaged front tyre. On arrival at the
depot the tyre and tube were damaged beyond repair. The worker
spoke with the Council's Engineer the following morning about the
incident. The Council proposed a disciplinary penalty on the
worker of suspension from duty for a period of one week and
removal from refuse driving duties for a period of three months (a
total loss of earnings of approximately £300). The Union appealed
this proposed disciplinary penalty. On a number of occasions
following the incident, management asked the worker to perform bin
lifting duties but he refused to do so. No agreement being
reached, the matter was referred, on 15th June, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference held on 7th July, 1988 failed to resolve the issue and
it was referred, on 18th July, 1988, to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The Court hearing took place on 19th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the day in question, the worker was 1½ miles from the
depot when he noticed a problem. He stopped to investigate
and noticed that the front wheel was low in pressure and the
wall of the tyre was ripped indicating that it was, at this
stage, damaged beyond repair. The wheel was not completely
deflated, however, and he proceeded to drive slowly to the
depot. When he arrived at the depot he approached the foreman
but was ignored.
2. The Council is stating that the worker left the tiphead
with a flat tyre. This allegation has not been substantiated
and is untrue.
3. The worker has an excellent overall record. He told the
truth on this occasion when he was in a position where he
could have told lies.
4. The Council is in a difficult financial position and is
implementing cost saving measures. Because of not allowing
this worker to drive the refuse truck on 20th May, it had to
pay overtime to other workers at a cost of about £400. The
Union considers this to be bad management. The intended
penalty on the worker will save the Council about £300.
5. The Council will allow the worker to drive other Council
vehicles while not allowing him to drive a refuse truck. This
seems to the Union to be inconsistent.
6. The Union does not condone wilful negligence. It does
not accept that there was wilful negligence in this case.
Other drivers in the depot have not been penalised as a result
of similar incidents and the Union considers that a penalty is
not appropriate in this case.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker drove the refuse truck 3½ miles on a flat tyre
resulting in the destruction of the tyre and tube. The
Council believes that this was done knowingly and deliberately
in order to avoid reporting the matter and the delay which
reporting it would cause him. It is considered, therefore,
that the worker engaged in wanton destruction of Council
property.
2. The vehicle itself and replacement parts for it are very
expensive. The Council points out that it is currently
experiencing financial pressure. The worker's
irresponsibility could have had further consequences in that
severe damage could have been caused to the vehicle.
Furthermore and more seriously, there was possible danger to
the occupants of the vehicle and other road users.
3. If no disciplinary action were taken against the worker
it would undermine the Council's efforts in ensuring that
drivers apply professional standards of driving. It would
also negatively affect its attempts to encourage a responsible
attitude on the part of employees towards their work. The
Council is satisfied that its decision to impose the penalty
on the worker is warranted and justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the employee concerned in this dispute should
suffer a penalty for driving a lorry with a damaged tyre. The
Court also considers that the penalty proposed is too severe.
The Court recommends that the Council drop the proposal to suspend
the employee for one week and that the employee be stood down from
driving duties to general operative duties for a period of two
weeks.
The Court does not recommend payment in respect of the days on
which the employee refused to carry out official instruction.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
2nd September, 1988
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.