Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88583 Case Number: AD8920 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: STAR PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (No. CW55/88) concerning the disciplining of a worker.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Union accepts a one day suspension is
imposed on the worker and that two days are held in
suspension until the end of 1988 conditional on the continued
good conduct of the worker at which time they would become
void."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
22nd July, 1988, appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court heard
the appeal on 14th February, 1989, in Cavan, (earlier date not
suitable to the Union).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The regular supervisor was not on duty on the day of the
incident and was replaced by a supervisor attached to another
shift. The rotation on the shift concerned is different to
the systems applying on the other 2 shifts.
2. The worker concerned felt he was being singled out and
maintains that the supervisor approached him in an abrupt
manner and would not accept his explanation. He agreed to
operate the machine when requested to do so by the shift
manager.
3. The Union contends that there are mitigating circumstances
in relation to this case, due mainly to the misunderstanding
brought about by the change in supervision. The supervisor
should not have insisted that the worker carry out the
instruction but should have listened more closely to his
explanation. At no stage was the worker abusive to his
supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker refused to carry out a legitimate instruction
and verbally abused his supervisor. This is clearly in breach
of the Company's work rules and normal practice. Not to
discipline him for either of these offences would seriously
undermine the normal operation of the Company and place
supervisors in a position where they could not properly
supervise.
2. The worker was dismissed by the Company in 1987, for
excessive absenteeism and was subsequently re-employed. The
Company has been more than reasonable in dealing with him.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
accordingly it rejects the Union's appeal. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88583 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: STAR PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation (No. CW55/88) concerning the disciplining of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case relates to an incident that occurred on the evening
shift (4 p.m. to 12 midnight), on 11th December, 1986. The worker
concerned was instructed to operate a particular machine (a B20
machine) by the supervisor. The worker refused on the basis that
a rotation system was in operation and as he had operated the B20
machine on the previous evening he was not due to operate it
again. The shift supervisor maintained that the worker was
verbally abusive when he refused to carry out the instruction.
The supervisor reported the incident to the shift manager, who
instructed the worker to operate the B20 machine. On 17th
December, 1986. The Company issued a 3 day suspension to the
worker. The Union appealed the suspension to a Rights
Commissioner who issued the following findings and recommendation
on 2nd June, 1988.
"Findings
It was agreed that there was an initial refusal by the worker
to carry out a reasonable instruction. I understand that any
ambiguity regarding similar circumstances regarding relief
machine duty has since been clarified. There is direct
conflict of statements regarding whether there was abusive
language used. On balance I consider that the Supervisor had
no reason to make up this report unless the incident
occurred. Whether it was intended or not I cannot say,
except that restraint is often necessary in the work place.
I understand that procedures in the matter which gave rise to
the incident have now been agreed, and also that no further
cause of complaint on the conduct of the worker has arisen in
the meantime. However, the role of Supervisors is vital and
merits the support of all employees in an organisation.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Union accepts a one day suspension is
imposed on the worker and that two days are held in
suspension until the end of 1988 conditional on the continued
good conduct of the worker at which time they would become
void."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
22nd July, 1988, appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court heard
the appeal on 14th February, 1989, in Cavan, (earlier date not
suitable to the Union).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The regular supervisor was not on duty on the day of the
incident and was replaced by a supervisor attached to another
shift. The rotation on the shift concerned is different to
the systems applying on the other 2 shifts.
2. The worker concerned felt he was being singled out and
maintains that the supervisor approached him in an abrupt
manner and would not accept his explanation. He agreed to
operate the machine when requested to do so by the shift
manager.
3. The Union contends that there are mitigating circumstances
in relation to this case, due mainly to the misunderstanding
brought about by the change in supervision. The supervisor
should not have insisted that the worker carry out the
instruction but should have listened more closely to his
explanation. At no stage was the worker abusive to his
supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker refused to carry out a legitimate instruction
and verbally abused his supervisor. This is clearly in breach
of the Company's work rules and normal practice. Not to
discipline him for either of these offences would seriously
undermine the normal operation of the Company and place
supervisors in a position where they could not properly
supervise.
2. The worker was dismissed by the Company in 1987, for
excessive absenteeism and was subsequently re-employed. The
Company has been more than reasonable in dealing with him.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
accordingly it rejects the Union's appeal. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___6th___March,___1989. _______________________
B. O'N. / J. C. Deputy Chairman