Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90376 Case Number: LCR12986 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES (MERCHANTS QUAY) CORK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (1) disciplinary action taken against a worker and manner in which it was implemented and (2) refusal by Company to pay workers from 10.15 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. on the 11th April, 1990.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the Union and in
the absence of any comment by the Company which did not attend the
hearing the Court is of the opinion that having regard to the long
period of previous satisfactory service of the worker in question
the penalty of a written warning was unduly severe in the
circumstances and recommends that it be replaced by a verbal
warning.
On the second issue the Court further recommends that insofar as
the staff were requested to stay in the canteen on the date in
question by Management that they should be paid for the time so
lost.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90376 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12986
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES (MERCHANTS QUAY) CORK
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (1) disciplinary action taken against a
worker and manner in which it was implemented and (2) refusal by
Company to pay workers from 10.15 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. on the 11th
April, 1990.
BACKGROUND:
2. On Monday 2nd April, 1990 at 5.50 p.m. the worker here
concerned informed her manager that she was "closing off" her
register and she also informed the staff manageress. As there
were no objections from either, she proceeded to close her
register. Five minutes later she was instructed by the staff
manageress to cash in goods for three customers. The worker
informed the manageress that she was in the middle of "closing
off" her register. The manageress then dealt with the three
customers.
3. The following morning the worker was informed that a very
serious view was being taken of the previous evenings incident and
that a formal warning was to be issued in the form of a letter.
The Union later met with the store manager and a formal meeting
was arranged for 9.00 a.m. the following day. The Union was
subsequently informed by the Company that the meeting was
cancelled and that any request for a further meeting would have to
be put in writing, setting out the proposed agenda. This the
Union did and a further meeting was arranged for the following
Monday at 5.30 p.m.
4. Prior to the meeting the Union became aware that a formal
warning had been issued to the worker concerned. The Union asked
the Company to withdraw the warning without prejudice to either
party, pending the outcome of the meeting. The Company declined
this request but agreed at the meeting to consider a suggestion
put forward by the Union that the formal warning be replaced by a
verbal warning on a one to one basis by the staff manageress to
the worker concerned.
5. On the following evening the worker was informed that the
formal warning would stand and that a copy would be placed on her
personnel file. The following morning (Wednesday, 11th April) the
workforce staged a sit-in in the staff canteen in protest against
the action taken by the Company. They were requested by the Union
to return to work. This the workers agreed to do. Prior to their
return to work the staff manageress informed the staff to return
to the canteen where she wished to speak to them. The Union was
also informed that the workers would be paid for the time they
were in the canteen. Later on the Union was shown a copy of a
letter which the workers were instructed to sign before returning
to work. The letter was an undertaking that no further unofficial
action would be taken by the workers. The Union advised the
workers to sign the letter and stated that in the event of it
being necessary to take further action as a result of a dispute
with the Company it would be regarded as official.
6. The workers signed the document and returned to work. The
staff manageress informed the Union that the Directors had decided
not to pay the workers for the duration of the meeting. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. The Union is seeking to have the formal warning withdrawn
and payment to the workers for the time the Company met with them
(10.15 a.m. to 11.15 p.m. on 11th April, 1990). The Company
declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference. The
Union then referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Cork on 18th
July, 1990. The Company did not attend and was not represented at
the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The initial issue is one which the Union is satisfied
could have been resolved in an amicable manner.
2. It could be argued that the Company deliberately
manipulated the circumstances to establish the extent of
support for the worker concerned.
3. Both the contradictions and the reversal of decisions made
by local Management would seem to indicate a lack of
responsibility and concern for members of their staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the Union and in
the absence of any comment by the Company which did not attend the
hearing the Court is of the opinion that having regard to the long
period of previous satisfactory service of the worker in question
the penalty of a written warning was unduly severe in the
circumstances and recommends that it be replaced by a verbal
warning.
On the second issue the Court further recommends that insofar as
the staff were requested to stay in the canteen on the date in
question by Management that they should be paid for the time so
lost.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___21st___August,__1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman