Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89844 Case Number: LCR12728 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: QUIGLEY COMPANY OF EUROPE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions of
the parties and the issues raised orally by them and in particular
the views expressed by the Union representative on behalf of the
worker concerned in this case.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim for reinstatement of the
dismissed worker.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89844 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12728
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: QUIGLEY COMPANY OF EUROPE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed for 23 years as a volvo
driver prior to his dismissal. One of his main duties was
transporting raw materials from a covered store to feeding hoppers
located within the plant. On the evening of Monday, 20th March,
1989 the worker concerned reported for duty for the 4.00 p.m.
to midnight shift. He was approached by the shift leader and
informed that in the event of rain he was to cover the bucket of
the volvo with a canvas cover to prevent the raw materials from
getting wet. The worker refused to carry out the instruction on
the basis that it was a major departure from normal work practice
and that it had never been part of the driving duties. He was
subsequently approached by the supervisor who again issued the
same instruction and he again refused. He continued to work
normally for the rest of his shift. It did not rain during the
shift.
3. On the following day the worker concerned was again asked to
carry out the instruction by the plant manager in the presence of
the works committee and shop steward prior to him commencing his
shift. The worker refused to carry out the instruction and he was
then suspended from work with full pay.
4. Management subsequently met with the Union, on the 22nd and
30th March, 1989 to discuss the overall situation and the worker's
suspension.
5. The worker was informed by the Company by letter dated 3rd
April, 1989 that his employment was terminated from that date
because of his continuing refusal to carry out a reasonable and
legitimate instruction by management.
6. Subsequent meetings between the Union and the Company failed
to resolve the dispute. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a conciliation conference as it considered
that the Employment Appeals Tribunal was the proper forum to hear
the case. The Union then referred the case to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by
the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Cork on
8th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker concerned has 25 years' service with the
Company and has been heavily involved in Union affairs having
spent the last 18 years as chairman of the works committee.
He was involved in the discussions which resulted in a
comprehensive Company/Union agreement which came into effect
in June, 1977. The instruction which management gave was in
contravention of Clause 1.1. and clause 1.11. of the agreement
which provides for proper consultation between management and
the Union before any major changes in work practices are
introduced. The worker and the other drivers had been
performing the same duties for many years (23 years in the
case of the worker here concerned). The worker also pointed
out to management that on previous occasions when the bucket
had to be covered it was done by a pool/spare employee.
2. The worker's refusal to carry out the instruction did not
interfere with production as it did not rain on Monday 20th
March, 1989.
3. The worker was dismissed under Clause 1.8 of the works
agreement which deals with the question of Management issuing
instructions. This clause was not applicable in this case as
the proposed changes sought constituted major changes in work
practices.
4. The Company, in dismissing the worker, were in breach of
procedures concerning discipline. The Union feels that for
refusing to carry out the instruction the worker should then
have been given a warning in the presence of a shop steward
followed by a written warning or at worst a period of
suspension. This was the course followed in other cases where
workers failed to carry out management instructions under
Clause 1.8. (details supplied to the Court).
5. Industrial relations had not been good at the plant for a
number of years with some long and bitter negotiations on
various issues which led to bad feelings building up between
the participants to these negotiations. The worker concerned
was party to these negotiations. However he approached them
with the best interests of his members at heart. In fact he
devoted a lot of his personal time in solving problems on the
Union side which in turn benefited the Company. The Union
consider that the Company, in this instance allowed their
sense of justice and fair play be clouded because of the
person involved, and in so doing committed a grave injustice
both to the worker and the Company itself.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. On the 20th March, 1989 it was raining heavily and it came
under notice that magnesite which was being carried across the
yard was getting wet in the volvo buckets. This coincided
with a series of complaints about the Company's cement being
lumpy and causing problems with its customers. The Company
decided to act immediately. A temporary canvas was prepared
for the volvo bucket, to be used by the driver when it was
raining and to instruct the driver accordingly. The driver on
the 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. shift used the canvas that day when
it was raining. The driver, shop steward and works committee
were informed that morning by management that this was a
temporary measure to be used until a permanent cover was made.
At the commencement of the 4.00 p.m. to midnight shift the
worker here concerned was given the appropriate instruction by
the shift leader. He refused to carry out the instruction and
he again refused when requested by his supervisor. The driver
was responsible for the contents of his volvo and he had
adequate time to cover the bucket as the volvo capacity far
exceeded the requirements of the plant. The following morning
the reasons for the instruction were explained to the shop
steward and the works committee. The shop steward and the
works committee acknowledged that the instruction was
reasonable and legitimate under the Works Agreement.
2. On the evening of the 21st March when the worker concerned
reported for duty he was again issued with the instruction by
the plant manager in the presence of the shop steward and
works committee following a detailed explanation of same. The
worker again refused to carry out the instruction and he was
then suspended with pay. His employment was subsequently
terminated.
3. The worker concerned was dismissed because of his
continuous refusal to carry out a reasonable and legitimate
instruction from the Company even contrary to advice given to
him by his Union and colleagues. A number of meetings were
held between the Company and the Union to discuss this matter,
before and after his dismissal, and at all these meetings the
worker still disagreed with the Company's and the Union's
interpretation of the Agreement and refused to carry out the
instruction.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions of
the parties and the issues raised orally by them and in particular
the views expressed by the Union representative on behalf of the
worker concerned in this case.
Given all of the circumstances of the case the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim for reinstatement of the
dismissed worker.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___________________
1st February, 1990
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.