Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89884 Case Number: LCR12841 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MR. PICKWICKS OUTDOOR CATERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a written warning issued to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to all the circumstances the Court does not
consider that the Company acted unreasonably in issuing a written
warning to the appellant. However, the Court recommends that the
warning be now regarded as having expired.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89884 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12841
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MR. PICKWICKS OUTDOOR CATERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY HARTY & ASSOCIATES)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a written warning issued to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based in Shannon, won the contract for
the supply of catering services to a local multinational company
in January, 1989. The worker concerned had six years service with
the previous contract caterers (as a general worker and cook) and
continued in employment at the canteen under the Company
concerned. In July, 1989, the Company employed a new commis chef
to cook on the day shift while the worker concerned was employed
to cook on the evening shift (5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.). The
Company claims that on the 26th July, 1989 the commis chef when
finishing the day shift made an oral and written request to the
worker concerned to cook twenty chickens for the evening shift.
The chickens were left out to defrost for subsequent cooking and
the Company claims that the worker concerned refused to cook them
and did not take the proper action to preserve the chickens once
she refused to cook them. On 29th July, 1989 the Company issued a
written warning to the worker concerned regarding her alleged
negligence. The Union claims that the worker concerned did not
receive an oral request from the commis chef to cook twenty
chickens, that in the course of her work on the evening shift she
discovered the written request to cook the twenty chickens, and
that when she found the chickens in a kitchen sink she did nothing
as she was unsure of the condition of the chickens for cooking and
preserving. Efforts by the Union to get a meeting with the
Company to discuss the matter at local level were not successful
and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. Separate conciliation conferences were held with
both parties on 29th November, 1989 but no agreement was reached.
The Union then referred the matter to the Labour Court under
section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to
be bound by the decision of the Court. The hearing was cancelled
at the request of the Company and a formal conciliation conference
took place on 5th February, 1990. At the conciliation conference
the Industrial Relations Officer made the following proposal:-
(1) The worker concerned will acknowledge that she was wrong in
omitting to take steps to safeguard Company property on the
evening of 26/7/1989 and undertakes in future to give full
co-operation in the performance of her duties as directed by
the catering manager or her designated supervisor.
(2) In the light of the above, and having regard to the worker's
satisfactory performance since the incident in July, 1989,
the written warning issued to her should be regarded as
having expired.
The proposal was rejected by the worker concerned who wanted total
withdrawal of the warning. As no agreement was reached the matter
was referred on 26th February, 1990 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court under Section 67 of the Industrial Relations Acts,
1946 to 1976. The hearing took place in Limerick on 10th April,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker concerned commenced work on the evening
shift on 26th July, 1989 she did not receive an oral request
from the commis chef to cook twenty chickens. The commis chef
had left before she commenced work. Whilst doing her own job
she found a note left by the commis chef telling her to put
twenty chickens into an oven to cook. The worker found the
chickens covered in water in a sink in the kitchen. She was
unsure as to the condition of the chickens for cooking and did
not cook them. The reason she did not put the chickens into a
fridge was:-
(a) She did not know how long they were in the water.
(b) If the chickens had been used the day after people may
have contracted food poisoning.
2. In the circumstances no charge should have been issued to
the worker concerned and the written warning should be
withdrawn.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 26th July, 1989 the commis chef requested the
worker concerned who was working on the evening shift to cook
twenty chickens for the evening shift. This request was made
in writing and the commis chef also spoke to the worker
regarding the food available for cooking for the evening
shift. Twenty chickens were left out for her to cook and she
subsequently refused to cook them and left them in a heated
kitchen without returning them to the fridge or taking the
necessary action to ensure their preservation. The chickens
were left abandoned and had to be thrown out.
2. The Company subsequently issued a letter including a
written warning regarding the above incident to the worker
concerned. The Company sought to discuss the incident with
the worker concerned without success.
3. The Company considers the worker's conduct on the evening
of 26th July, 1989 to breach in a serious way the relationship
of trust between an employer and an employee. No amount of
rationale could justify not taking precautionary measures to
return the chickens to the fridge in order to preserve them.
Any reasonable employee would have taken the necessary
corrective action.
4. The Company expects its employees to behave in a
responsible and flexible manner. In many cases the conduct of
the worker concerned would warrant dismissal and not a written
warning because of the seriousness of the situation. The
Company requests that the written warning should be upheld by
the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to all the circumstances the Court does not
consider that the Company acted unreasonably in issuing a written
warning to the appellant. However, the Court recommends that the
warning be now regarded as having expired.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___11th___May,____1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman