Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89545 Case Number: LCR12547 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KILKENNY TEXTILE MILLS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
compensation for loss of earnings arising from suspension.
However, in the special circumstances of the case, the claimants
previous good record and the existence of a dispute as to
productivity levels, the Court recommends that the written warning
should not be treated as a final one and should be removed from
the claimants record after a period of 52 weeks.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89545 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12547
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KILKENNY TEXTILE MILLS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed in the twisting department of
the factory. During 1988, the Company advised the Union that the
production of two-ply yarn had become uncompetitive. The
Company's view was that there were artificial restrictions on
production and it decided that there should be a gradual
improvement in production levels and that there should be a
reduction from four persons to three persons per shift. These
proposals were disputed by the Union. (This matter has since been
resolved by IPC Reports of April and July, 1989). Subsequently, a
number of vacancies occurred in the twisting department and were
filled by trainees.
3. In February, 1989 the Company imposed five days suspension on
the worker concerned and issued him with a final written warning
on the grounds that the worker had informed trainees that they
should not operate at higher production levels than the other
workers. The Union's position is that the imposition of the
suspension and issuing of the written warning was unjustified and
that the worker should receive #144.00 net for the loss of
earnings involved. On 15th May, 1989 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. On 26th May, 1989
the worker received a further suspension and lost one day's pay on
the grounds that he was not complying with agreed production
levels. A conciliation conference was held on 11th July, 1989 at
which no progress was made and on 8th August, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
There is a difference of opinion between the parties as to whether
the matter of the second suspension has been resolved. The Court
investigated the dispute on 18th August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As the new workers were still on probation they were
reluctant to dispute the Company's manning levels or
workloads. Some of the trainees discreetly sought advice from
the Union and were advised that as they were in their
probationary periods they should ignore the dispute about
manning levels/workloads. As the trainees showed some concern
about the reaction of the permanent workers to this the Union
suggested that the permanent workers should let the trainees
know that they understood the situation.
2. This worker as one of the permanent workers in the
twisting department decided to talk to the probationers on the
matter. When he did speak to them anything he said was
consistent with the Union position. Throughout the appeals
procedure and at conciliation the Company said that it had a
statement from a probationary worker. However, no such
statement has been shown to the Union and no worker has been
found who made such a complaint. Since the worker's
suspension, a work study has been conducted which has shown
that the workers' claim that the Company's proposals involved
an unfair workload was unsustainable. However, this does not
in any way suggest that the action of this worker or any
others was improper, as at all times they were insisting that
the proper procedure be followed. The suspension and warning
should be removed from the worker's record and he should be
paid #144.00 net.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For a number of years production in the twisting
department has been uncompetitive and inefficient and it was
the Company's view that some workers were putting artificial
restrictions on production. Although this worker is an
experienced operator he had never done more than 7 doffs,
while the trainees very quickly moved to production levels of
8 doffs. This worker's suspension which occurred in February,
1989 arose from intimidation of trainees two of whom reported
this informally to management.
2. It is the Company's view that intimidating or pressurising
another worker, particularly a trainee, is completely
unacceptable. In addition, a worker does not have the right
to seek to impose on other workers an artificial restriction
on production levels. The five day suspension and final
written warning arising from incidents with other workers must
stand.