Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88456 Case Number: LCR12042 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR COMPANY - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for reinstatement to the position of forklift driver in the loading bay.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Company did not act in an unreasonable manner and
accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88456 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12042
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH SUGAR COMPANY
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for reinstatement to the position
of forklift driver in the loading bay.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1987 the worker concerned, who at that time
worked as a forklift truck driver in the loading bay of the sugar
store, decided that the forklift he was driving was unsafe. The
forklift was taken to the company garage for repairs but was found
by management to be in a safe condition. The worker was offered
an alternative vehicle but he declined this and he was therefore
transferred to the Sugar Store Loading Out Gang (a non-driving
job) and the Company continued to pay him the forklift rate and
his forklift job was carried out by another worker. Prior to
this, the Company had purchased two new forklifts. The first of
these arrived in early December, 1987 at the same time as this
incident and was assigned to another driver in the loading bay of
the sugar store. The other forklift arrived in mid-December, 1987
and was assigned to the worker who had replaced the worker
concerned here. Local level discussions took place at which the
Company refused to re-instate the worker to his former position
(he is presently employed driving a forklift in the Sugar Store).
On 9th March, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 15th March, 1988, at which no agreement could be reached. On
16th August, 1988 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on 12th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The question at issue here is whether the forklift used
by the worker in December, 1987 was safe or not. The worker
was of the opinion that the vehicle was unsafe. The drivers
exit on one side of the vehicle was obstructed and was
therefore a safety hazard particularly in the event of fire.
The Company has said that in such a situation the driver could
exit from the rear of the vehicle. However, this exit was
also cut-off by a bag of sugar used to keep the hinged door on
the back closed, as this was also faulty. The Company's
solution to making the vehicle safe was to remove the doors on
the forklift. However, this made the forklift totally
unsuitable for working outside the confines of the enclosed
area of the store, as the driver would have no protection in
adverse weather conditions.
2. At a meeting of the Safety Committee held on 6th
January, 1988, the issue of the safety of this vehicle was
discussed (details supplied to the Court). The Committee was
of the opinion that any worker was acting in a responsible
manner by not operating an unsafe machine. This confirms the
fact that the worker acted in a proper manner by refusing to
operate the vehicle when he considered it to be unsafe. In
the Sugar Store there is a seniority/appointment scale of
three places. The Company stated that this worker's position
at number two would not change, however they have not allowed
him to carry out the work he was previously on. It would
appear that this action was taken because he refused to
operate the unsafe machinery. The worker should be
re-instated to his former position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The forklift involved was checked out in the Company
Garage and found to be safe and was later checked out by Irish
Lift Trucks who also found it to be in good safe working order
(details supplied to the Court). The worker has been
unco-operative despite the fact that management spent a
considerable amount of time and effort in accommodating him.
The worker refused to drive the assigned forklift although
other workers were quite happy to and also put a picket on the
premises even though the issue was being discussed between the
Union and management at the time. In spite of this management
has not taken any serious action such as suspension/dismissal
and so far only a final warning has been issued.
4. 2. General workers in the Company are recruited and
employed to undertake a full range of duties. As such, it is
a regular and normal feature in this situation that the
workers transfer from job to job as required and are paid the
appropriate rates. This worker is a general worker and has
previously worked in other jobs as well as forklift driving.
The worker is presently operating a forklift within the same
sugar store and with no loss of pay. The Company has gone
much further than could reasonably be expected in resolving
this problem.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Company did not act in an unreasonable manner and
accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th September, 1988 ----------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman