Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90558 Case Number: AD9048 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MURRAYS EUROPCAR LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 21/90 concerning disciplinary measures taken against a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should stand but that the final warning should lapse one calendar
year from the date of issue of this decision.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90558 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4890
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MURRAYS EUROPCAR LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 21/90 concerning disciplinary measures
taken against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed with the Company for
twenty two years in a clerical capacity. On 28th July, 1989 he
was issued with a written warning following an allegation that he
made objectionable remarks to a member of staff. The Union
objected to the warning and the matter was referred for
investigation by a Rights Commissioner. Before the Rights
Commissioner investigated the matter on 28th March, 1990 a similar
alleged incident occurred (details supplied to the Court) in early
March, 1990 with the result that the worker was suspended for four
and one half days. The Rights Commissioner investigated both the
alleged incidents and issued the following recommendation in
April, 1990:-
"RECOMMENDATION:
In the light of the above I recommend that the written
warning of July, 1989 should be expunged from the worker's
record. I further recommend that the suspension imposed in
March, 1990 should be converted into a final written warning
to the worker. Therefore the worker should be reimbursed for
any losses he incurred due to the suspension of March, 1990.
I would urge the worker to make sure that he acts at all
times with consideration towards his colleagues otherwise a
repetition of the previous incident will only result in him
placing his livelihood in jeopardy."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
On 19th September, 1990 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 24th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The alleged incident which gave rise to the March, 1990
disciplinary action was indicative of a strained atmosphere
which has developed in the office where the worker is
employed. While an incident did take place it was not
directed at any member of staff. If there was an indiscretion
the worker should have only received a verbal warning. The
issue of a final written warning was unjustified and should be
withdrawn.
2. The final written warning itself is unreasonable in that
it is indefinite. In theory the worker could be suspended or
dismissed in years to come following the written warning given
in 1990. If the written warning is to stand it should be for
a finite period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was involved in incidents at his place of work
which warranted disciplinary action by the Company. The
Company cannot allow its business to be disrupted by incidents
of this nature and must take disciplinary action when
necessary.
2. The Company is prepared to accept the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation in the interests of all
concerned. The written warning which issued to the worker was
not intended for an indefinite period. This was not the first
time the Company has issued a final warning to the worker
concerned. The Company has a tradition of good industrial
relations and has always been considerate to its workers in
such matters.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should stand but that the final warning should lapse one calendar
year from the date of issue of this decision.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________________
1st November, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.