Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89811 Case Number: AD8991 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BEECHAMS OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 240/89 concerning the suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand subject to the written warning being
cancelled with effect from the 1st anniversary of its issue.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89811 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BEECHAMS OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. S.T. 240/89 concerning the suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the morning of the 24th February, 1989, the worker
concerned was stationed at her workplace on the crate washing
machine. At approximately 8.20 a.m. while her machine was
stopped, she was observed, by the supervisor, talking to another
worker. The Company contends that she became abusive when
challenged about talking whilst her machine was stopped. She was
subsequently asked to attend a meeting with the Production Manager
who pointed out that her behaviour was unacceptable. On 1st
March, 1989, the worker was informed by letter that she was being
suspended from work without pay and that a copy of the letter was
being placed on her file. The Union maintains that the worker
concerned called to a fellow operator for a light for her
cigarette before taking a break and since the other worker could
not hear her above the noise of the machines he approached her.
The machine was not stopped in order to talk. A crate had become
jammed in it. When she was challenged about talking, she admits
she did raise her voice at what she perceived as being an unfair
intervention by the chargehand. As raised voices are a feature of
the plant, where loud background noise is present, the Union
believes the punishment was out of proportion to the alleged
crime. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. On 11th October, 1989, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following Recommendation.
"The claimant had been spoken to before, concerning her
behaviour in similar situations. I accept the Union's
argument in relation to the culture on the shop floor in a
noisy environment. However it appears that the claimant
exceeded the permissible bounds on the occasion.
In all the circumstances I recommend that the two day
suspension be reduced to one day. The day's reduction should
be taken from the claimant's holiday entitlement or
alternatively she could take a day off with pay as agreed."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was rejected by the Union
who appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
30th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned did not use any term of abuse nor
foul language. She is an excellent worker and is acknowledged
as such by the Company. She has received no previous
warnings. Under the circumstances she felt that the
implication that she was neglecting her duties was an extreme
reaction to her having moved from her work station for a
couple of seconds.
2. The Company have made much of the fact that she received a
verbal warning for raising her voice to a supervisor on a
prior occasion, however at that time the production manager
accepted that she was under stress because of illness and any
warning issued was withdrawn. The Union believes that the
suspension and warning should be withdrawn in this instance
also.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company's view that the job of line managers
would be made impossible if the attitude of the worker were to
be tolerated. The reduced penalty of one day's suspension,
recommended by the Rights Commissioner, is the very minimum
that can be applied in this case.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand subject to the written warning being
cancelled with effect from the 1st anniversary of its issue.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
18th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.