Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/89/836 Case Number: LCR12696 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89836 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12696
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed in the Company's Upper Baggot
Street branch as a sales assistant in the Fruit and Vegetable
Department. He was suspended on the afternoon of Saturday, 8th
April, 1989 because he returned from lunch with a haircut which
Management deemed unsuitable. He was suspended pending a meeting
with the Company's Regional Manager which was not held until the
13th April (he was paid for the 11th and 12th). At the meeting on
the 13th April, Management proposed that the claimant wear a white
coat and a butcher or baconman's hat similar to those worn in the
Butchery or Provisions Department. The worker rejected this
proposal and he was subsequently suspended from duty until such
time as his hair grew to a length that was acceptable to
Management. He was allowed return to work on the 24th April,
1989. The Union subsequently lodged a claim that he be paid for
the eight days suspension but this was rejected by Management.
The Company was unwilling to attend either a Rights Commissioner
or a conciliation conference. The Union then referred the matter
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, and agreed beforehand to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 5th
December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was given no warning prior to the 8th April
in relation to his hair style and the hair cut he received was
definitely not the outrage the Company made it out to be. He
had received a "flat top" hair cut which is fashionable for
people of his age.
3. 2. Prior to his suspension in April and subsequent to it, he
has worn the same hairstyle without comment from the Company.
3. The Court is requested to recommend that the Company pay
him the eight days' pay he lost and to enter into discussions
with the Union regarding guidelines for staff members'
personal appearance during working hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is engaged in a highly competitive business
and many of its competitors pay below the Union rate, i.e. the
emerging symbol group shops. The Company's marketing strategy
includes providing the customer with an extensive choice of
food merchandise in the most modern and hygienic shopping
environments. The appearance of staff and the impression they
make on the customer is an essential element of this strategy.
Accordingly, the Company has always specified the standards of
appearance required.
2. With regard to hairstyles for males the Company has always
required that these shall be kept neat and that the style must
be conservative. Policies regarding staff appearance are well
established in Baggot Street and throughout the Company and
are communicated to staff on a regular basis. It is
Management's view that the claimant was, and is, fully aware
of these policies. It is common practise, for example, for
male staff members to be told to shave if they come in
unshaven or to be sent out to get their hair cut if they come
in with their hair too long.
3. Management's suggestion that he wear a hat while his hair
was growing was reasonable. There is nothing unusual in this,
male staff in Provisions and Meat Departments wear hats as a
routine. He was also offered a white coat so that it would
blend in with the hat suggested to him (he normally wears a
green coat).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
__9th___January,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman