Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9036 Case Number: LCR12761 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning a written warning dated 16th March, 1989, issued to a worker.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
An examination of the extensive dossier of written memoranda
relating to the particular worker's performance would certainly
seem to cast doubt on is professional competence. However it does
seem to the Court that the background against which this dossier
was compiled imposed a considerable strain on the relationship
between the worker and his immediate superior which wasn't
entirely fair on either of them.
Bearing in mind the long and apparently satisfactory service of
the worker concerned prior to 1987 it is the Court's opinion that
only by a transfer to a different department would it be possible
to arrive at a fair assessment of the worker's competence and the
Court recommends that Management exercise its authority to effect
such a transfer to allow such an assessment to take place.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9036 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12761
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a written warning dated 16th March, 1989,
issued to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a
laboratory technician on 6th December, 1976. In 1979 he was
appointed senior technician. He has been employed in the Product
Development Department during all his time in Loctite. He has
worked to five different chemists.
3. The worker concerned was never disciplined or spoken to about
his work performance prior to 1987. On 19th February, 1988 the
worker received a verbal warning regarding poor work performance.
The Union appealed this warning. There were numerous meetings
between the parties and investigations by a Rights Commissioner
(details supplied to the Court) culminating in a recommendation
being issued by a Rights Commissioner in January, 1989. The
worker also received a written warning dated 23rd September, 1988.
The Rights Commissioner recommended inter alia that:
1. The written warning of 23rd September, 1988 should be
withdrawn.
2. The verbal warning of 19th February, 1988 should stand.
3. There be a 4 month period of training and counselling
after which the worker's position was to be reviewed.
On 22nd February, 1989 agreement was reached on part acceptance of
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. Under this agreement
the written warning would be withdrawn, the verbal warning would
take effect from 22nd February, 1989 and the Company could operate
the further terms of the disciplinary procedure against the worker
if it so wished. If this was to occur, all of the evidence would
be furnished to the Union representative at the point when the
warning(s) would be applied.
4. On the 16th March, 1989 the Company issued a written warning
to the worker concerned. The worker placed a one day unofficial
picket on the gate of Loctite and all the trade union employees
refused to pass it. Following meetings at local level it was
agreed on 29th March, 1989 that the written warning would be held
in abeyance pending the exploration of finding an alternative
position for the worker concerned. The issue of the warning was
the subject of two further Rights Commissioners investigation on
7th July, 1989 and 17th August, 1989 concerning the period
relating to the written warning.
5. On the 25th August, 1989 the Company wrote to the worker
concerned stating that it was unable to find an alternative
position for him and that the written warning of the 16th March,
1989 was again in place. The Union wants this warning to be left
in suspense until an asssessor makes a report. As no agreement
was reached on the matter the issue of the warning was then
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 30th
August, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on 12th
December, 1989. As no agreement was reached both parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 31st January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker worked for ten years to different chemists
without any complaints about his work performance. It is only
since he started working to his present supervisor that
complaints about his work performance began which questioned
his technical competence. The worker is prepared to have his
technical competence examined by an independent assessor. The
Union believes that the worker should be moved to another
Department under a different supervisor so that another
opinion would be available. This course of action has proved
successful in the past in other areas of the Company.
2. The bulk of the evidence furnished to justify the issue of
the written warning takes the form of written work assignments
from the worker's immediate supervisor. The Union believes
that they are written in a format so as to discredit the
worker (details supplied to the Court). The worker carried
out his assignments in a competent manner and no different
from any other technician working in the Research and
Development depatment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Loctite has pursued all possible approaches to resolving
the issue of the worker's performance at work. This has
included searching for suitable alternative positions within
Loctite. (In this regard the Union have insisted that any
alternative be at Senior Technician Grade).
2. Extensive counselling of the worker by his supervisor
prior to the issuing of any warnings has failed to bring about
any improvement in his work performance. The written warning
of 16th March, 1989 is totally justified based on his
performance during the agreed reference period of 6 months.
3. Unless there is a major improvement in his work
performance; particularly in the context of the reliability of
his work; it is inevitable that further warnings will ensue.
The Company have sought to explore every possible avenue in
resolving this matter and the only remaining option is to
pursue the disciplinary procedure. It is totally unacceptable
to Loctite to maintain the current situation whereby in a
Research and Development Laboratory the Company cannot rely on
the work of one of its technicians.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
An examination of the extensive dossier of written memoranda
relating to the particular worker's performance would certainly
seem to cast doubt on is professional competence. However it does
seem to the Court that the background against which this dossier
was compiled imposed a considerable strain on the relationship
between the worker and his immediate superior which wasn't
entirely fair on either of them.
Bearing in mind the long and apparently satisfactory service of
the worker concerned prior to 1987 it is the Court's opinion that
only by a transfer to a different department would it be possible
to arrive at a fair assessment of the worker's competence and the
Court recommends that Management exercise its authority to effect
such a transfer to allow such an assessment to take place.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
29th March, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.