Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90354 Case Number: AD9029 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SHELBOURNE GREYHOUND STADIUM - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 179/90.
Recommendation:
5. In all the circumstances of the case the Court considers that
the Company's appeal be upheld. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is accordingly overturned.
The Court further recommends that the Company should review the
employees position in January, 1991 and if his job performance in
the intervening period is satisfactory they consider re-instating
him as a stilesman.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90354 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: SHELBOURNE GREYHOUND STADIUM
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 179/90.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in a part-time capacity
as stilesman, since 1983. He works at Shelbourne Park and Harolds
Cross stadiums, six nights a week, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.
approximately. A dispute arose when a member of the public
complained that the worker had verbally abused both his partner
and himself when a disagreement arose over payment for admission
to the stadium. The worker was interviewed by management after
the race meeting and he admitted to an angry exchange of words
with the complainant. He was informed that a most serious view
was taken of the incident and that disciplinary action was being
considered. In a letter dated 9th May 1990, the worker was
advised:-
a) that he had been spoken to previously by the General Manager,
Shelbourne Park and by the Manager at Harolds Cross, in regard
to the manner in which he performed his duties as stilesman.
b) that the Manager in Harolds Cross had in November, 1989 spoken
to him about the use of bad language to a patron at Harolds
Cross.
c) that in the circumstances he was being transferred from the
duty of stilesman to that of parader.
d) that the higher rate of pay as stilesman would apply as
parader.
e) that the Directors would be constrained to consider the
question of his future employment on the part-time staff
should there be any further failure on his part to perform his
duties in a satisfactory manner.
The worker complained that he was not given an opportunity of
defending himself in the presence of the complainant. Following
local discussions on the issue management and the Union agreed to
refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 23rd May, 1990.
His recommendation is as follows:-
"RECOMMENDATION
I cannot understand what the claimant hoped to achieve by
asking clients to sign a declaration in relation to his
good behaviour against the background that he had
referred the case to his Union. Such behaviour on
Company paid time is not acceptable and does not show
much confidence in the ability of his own Union to
process his case to a successful conclusion.
I understand that he has since the investigation
approached management regarding information which I
properly sought from them in a private side conference.
If such information supplied by the Company at my request
was material to my determination in this matter I would
have told the Union representative in order that a proper
defence could be entered on that point.
This is yet again another example of the impetuosity
which is evident in the claimant's behaviour and which he
will need to curb in the future if he is to have any
future in the employment.
In consideration of the case made by the Union in
relation to his not having received any formal warning in
the past, I recommend that he is restored to his former
duties on a last chance basis. If he is guilty of any
serious infraction in the period up to the 9/5/91 then he
should be liable to dismissal after due and required
procedures."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
14th June, 1990. The Court heard the appeal on 18th July 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned with the dispute was unfairly dealt
with by the Company. He was removed from his original
position on the stiles without being given an opportunity of
defending himself in the presence of the complainant.
2. The Company state that the worker was spoken to on a
previous occasion, about his attitude to the public. If the
problem was as serious as the Company now claim, the worker
should have received a written warning to indicate to him the
seriousness of the complaint and to advise him of the
consequences of further occurrences.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management are satisfied that the worker is not suitable
for duty as stilesman. They have been more than lenient in
transferring him to another position, while retaining the
higher rate of pay.
2. Following disciplinary action, the worker approached
patrons attending Shelbourne Park and Harolds Cross, seeking
signatures to a document regarding the performance of his
duties. Despite requests from management to desist, the
worker continued to seek signatures. The worker was given an
opportunity by letter of 18th May, 1990 to submit his
observations on the matter in writing. The Company received
no response to the letter.
3. Management, following a request from the worker, agreed to
assign him to duties in the kennel yard. It was intended to
assign him to parader duties. The Court is asked to uphold,
management's right to re-assign workers as is necessary and
its action in regard to its handling of the particular
dispute.
DECISION:
5. In all the circumstances of the case the Court considers that
the Company's appeal be upheld. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is accordingly overturned.
The Court further recommends that the Company should review the
employees position in January, 1991 and if his job performance in
the intervening period is satisfactory they consider re-instating
him as a stilesman.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___30th___July,____1990. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman