Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88890 Case Number: LCR12263 Section / Act: S67 Parties: L. D. INTERCON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the re-instatement of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that, having regard to the
probationary nature of the workers employment and taking into
account the number of issues upon which the worker's behaviour
might be deemed to be unsatisfactory, any special consideration of
her case is warranted. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Unions claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88890 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12263
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: L. D. INTERCON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the re-instatement of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of power cords,
cable harnesses, computer keyboard cables and interconnecting
cables at its plant in Birr, Co. Offaly. It employs approximately
200 workers. The worker concerned commenced work as a trainee
operator on the spiral lathe on the 23rd February, 1988 and was on
probation for six months. On the 29th April, 1988 a number of
workers on the night shift were alleged to have overstayed their
canteen breaks. Management indicated its intention to discipline
these workers but deferred the action pending a meeting with the
Union. At a meeting with the Union on the 5th May the Company
advised them of its decision to dismiss the worker concerned for
this and other misdemeanours such as her refusal to wear a hair
net as required and poor productivity performance. One of her
colleagues was also dismissed for another more serious incident at
the plant which the Union considered was justified and accepted
the Company's decision. The Union however requested that the
Company reconsider its decision in relation to the worker
concerned and requested that she be given another chance to prove
herself. The Company refused to alter its decision stating that
the purpose of the probationary period is to allow both the
employer and the employee time to assess the mutual suitability of
entering into a full time employment contract. The Company
decided not to enter into this contract and terminated the
worker's employment as from 2nd May, 1988. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 12th May, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on the 13th July, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 21st November,
1988. A Court hearing was held in Tullamore on the 17th January,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At various meetings with Management in relation to the
revision of the Company/Union agreement, the Union voiced
serious disquiet about the lack of representation that was
afforded to newly recruited workers during their probationary
period. A high proportion of the workforce at the plant are
young women with little or no experience of working in a
highly structured industrial environment. The general
perception was that probationers were victims of circumstances
for whom no intermediary or defensive role could be played.
The Union put forward various proposals to the Company in
relation to clause 4 page 4 of the Employees Handbook
regarding equality of treatment for probationers (details
supplied to the Court). Management however were not in a
position to accept these amendments.
2. When the Company stated its intention to discipline the
workers at the meeting of 5th May, 1988 the Union accepted
the Company's decision to sack one of the workers for a
serious incident at the plant. However the worker concerned
who had only been employed for two months, was sacked for
reasons totally separate from the activities of the other
workforce. The Company refused the Union's request to give
the employee another chance, and refused to state the precise
reason for her dismissal. The Union claims that the worker
was dismissed, not for anything she had or had not done, but
as an example to others. As an immediate consequence of the
Management's approach, all further discussions on the review
of the Company/Union Agreement were suspended, and the
Agreement itself was terminated.
3. Management gave "not wearing a hair net and overstaying
the tea break" as the reasons for the sacking of the worker.
However at the time of the incidents the manager concerned
stated that he had not instructed the employee to wear her
hair net, and at the time of the "tea break incident" she was
part of a group of twelve who had received only written
warnings concerning their extended tea breaks. The Union
accepted the decision of the Company to terminate the
employment of the worker who was dismissed because of a
serious incident at the plant. However the Union strongly
urged the Company to give the worker concerned another chance
(considering she was on probation) but the Company rejected
the Union's request. Incidentally the Company advised the
Union by letter in August, 1988 that it was prepared to
reconsider its position concerning probationers'
representation. It seems totally illogical to the Union that
the Company is willing to initiate change (in relation to
probationers) while at the same time refusing to give an
inexperienced worker, guilty of minor misdemeanour, a second
chance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employee was dismissed for three reasons:
(1) Refusal to wear a safety hairnet.
(2) Overstaying a tea break.
(3) Failure to reach consistent production efficiencies.
In the Company Union Agreement it is stated that deliberate
violation of safety rules or engaging in any activity which is
a serious breach of the safety rules would be viewed by
Management as serious misconduct and would leave an employee
liable to dismissal. In February, 1988 a serious accident
occurred on the spiral lathe. Following this accident it was
clearly indicated to employees that refusal to wear safety
hairnets would have serious consequences for workers up to and
including dismissal. The Company increased its vigilance in
both informing and insisting on employees' compliance with
this regulation. The worker was spoken to on several
occasions, both individually and as part of a group and
strongly advised of the necessity of wearing a safety hairnet.
Despite this, the employee was found on a number of occasions
not to be complying with this request. On the 29th April,
1988 the Manager had occasion to approach the worker on
another matter. She was not wearing her safety hairnet once
again. This flagrant disregard for safety procedures was a
factor in the Company's decision to dismiss her.
2. The Manager had, for some time, suspicions that persons on
the night shift were overstaying their tea breaks. In order
to allay fears of break abuse he came to the plant to observe
the 5.00 a.m. to 5.20 a.m. tea break. On one occasion he
observed the employee concerned overstaying her tea break by
nineteen minutes. She was the person to stay longest in the
canteen. It was the same day that she was spoken to in
relation to not wearing her safety hairnet.
3. Since product quality is essential in the marketplace the
Company enters into a detailed training programme for all its
probationers. The worker commenced training on the spiral
lathe but despite being given detailed attention by her
trainer and supervisor, her efficiency was erratic varying
from 33% to 80%. She was spoken to regarding this failure to
reach the required targets with any consistency despite being
given every assistance. Management were of the view that the
worker was in fact capable of maintaining a production
standard since at times she achieved high production
efficiency, however her production efficiency was erratic.
4. The Company/Union agreement clearly states that during the
probationary period "an employee found to be unsuitable, may
be discharged by the Company without disclosing reasons for
its decision, and without recourse to the disciplinary or
grievance procedure. The Company feels that every opportunity
was given to the worker in areas of work performance and
compliance with Company rules. She failed to achieve a
consistent production standard, and refused to wear a safety
hairnet, or return from breaks at schedule times. She entered
into a contractual arrangement with the Company to abide by
certain rules. Clearly she was not prepared to abide by these
rules. She was made aware by virtue of the Company/Union
agreement and repeated warnings of the consequences of her
actions, yet the worker indicated by her performance that she
was not prepared to observe the spirit of the contract entered
into. The Company's decision to dismiss the worker was based
on the three incidents outlined. A breach of trust took place
between both parties and the employment relationship has
irrevocably broken down. No Company should be expected to
employ a person in a full time capacity under these
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that, having regard to the
probationary nature of the workers employment and taking into
account the number of issues upon which the worker's behaviour
might be deemed to be unsatisfactory, any special consideration of
her case is warranted. The Court therefore does not recommend
concession of the Unions claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
8th February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.