Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89362 Case Number: LCR12484 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNIONS |
Dispute concerning a final written warning issued to a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court in this case takes the view that the Company in the
circumstances were not unreasonable in issuing a final written
warning instead of deciding upon dismissal. However it does seem
that to put the worker concerned permanently at hazard as the
existence of the warning does, seems unduly harsh.
The Court therefore, in view of the workers continuing good record
recommends that the warning be expunged completely from his record
with effect from 19th August next, the first anniversary of its
issue.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89362 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12484
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMEPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a final written warning issued to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned, at the time of the incident was a
general operative employed in the Company. On the 15th August,
1988 the worker left work at 11.00 p.m. before his shift was due
to finish without informing management and without clocking out.
3. Management subsequently investigated the incident on the 17th
August, 1988. The worker declined to be represented at the
investigation. The worker confirmed that he had left the premises
at 11.00 0'clock and stated that he had been feeling sick. He did
not approach management as he believed there were no supervisors
on duty at the time. He forgot to clock out due to his illness.
He told another employee that he was going home.
4. The Company then issued the worker with a final written
warning. The Union objected to the warning being issued on the
basis that it was too severe and sought to have it removed. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 12th October, 1988. A conciliation conference was held
on 17th November, 1988. As no agreement was possible both parties
subsequently consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Cavan on the 28th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was genuinely sick on the night in question.
His own supervisor was on annual leave and he was not aware
that anyone had replaced him. He arranged with a fellow
employee to complete his duties for him.
2. The imposition of the final written warning is in breach
of the disciplinary procedure operating within the Company.
It is the Union's view that there is no evidence of serious
misconduct which would warrant the setting aside of the
earlier stages of the disciplinary procedure.
3. Up to this incident the worker had a good record of
attendance and application to duty.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Having carefully considered all of the matters, the
Company decided not to dismiss the worker as they felt they
would have been entitled to do, but issued him with a final
written warning. In issuing the warning the Company had
regard to the very serious nature of the offences, and the
fact that there was a management representative present who
the worker could have approached.
2. The Company acted fairly and reasonably, having regard to
all of the circumstances. Had the Company failed to take
disciplinary action, this would have very serious implications
for future standards of conduct in the Company. Before making
a decision on the issue the Company adopted an impeccable
procedure investigating the matter in full, allowing for
representation and only making their decision having regard to
all of the facts.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court in this case takes the view that the Company in the
circumstances were not unreasonable in issuing a final written
warning instead of deciding upon dismissal. However it does seem
that to put the worker concerned permanently at hazard as the
existence of the warning does, seems unduly harsh.
The Court therefore, in view of the workers continuing good record
recommends that the warning be expunged completely from his record
with effect from 19th August next, the first anniversary of its
issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
25th July, 1989
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.