Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91120 Case Number: AD9172 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER RIANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 340/90 concerning disciplinary action taken against a worker.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the detailed submissions from the parties
and viewed the video recording of the events which gave rise to
the dispute, the Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be upheld with one
amendment. The Union submitted that the Rights Commissioner erred
in agreeing with the Company's penalty of four weeks' suspension,
as one week referred to an incident which he stated should be
considered void. The Court agrees with this submission and
accordingly finds that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be
upheld, subject to the four weeks suspension being reduced to
three.
The appeal on all other points is rejected.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91120 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 340/90 concerning disciplinary action
taken against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed as an Airport
Police/Fireman (A.P.F.) since January, 1980. Disciplinary
proceedings were taken against him following 3 incidents which
occurred on 3rd and 4th March, 199O. The first complaint
concerned him carrying out his duties in a slovenly manner on the
morning of 3rd March, 1990 while he was on duty checking customers
luggage as they arrived at the Airport. The second complaint
concerned his treatment of an airport customer and thirdly acting
in an insubordinate manner to his supervisor.
3. He was suspended with pay from 5th March, 1990 while the
Company investigated the incidents. On the 31st May, 1990 the
Company wrote to the worker informing him that it intended to
instigate disciplinary action against him by suspending him
without pay for a period of four weeks (with effect from 17th
June, 1990) and issuing him with a final written warning. The
letter also advised him of his right of appeal in accordance with
the Airport Police Fire Service Agreement. The worker appealed
and the appeal was heard on 19th June, 1991. The Appeal Board
upheld the four week suspension and amended the final written
warning to read "any future breach of regulations may result in
your dismissal."
4. The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 14th December, 1990 and 8th January,
1991 and found as follows:-
"FINDINGS
1. The worker has made many allegations regarding persons
involved in this dispute. These allegations have not been
substantiated and can only serve to alienate the Company
reaction and to distort a reasonable consideration of the
issues from an industrial relations point of view.
2. The method adopted by the worker to dispute the
allegations has tended to obscure the issues and even to
confuse them with procedures.
3. I consider that the worker has over-reacted and tended to
confuse adversarial legal procedures with industrial
relations ones which tend to be conciliatory, and strive to
achieve resolution of disputes while being fair to
individuals.
4. Whatever the role is of the Airport Security Force it is
important that its structure and management conforms to
normal practices, and it is bound by the same disciplinary
and grievance procedures as other workers.
5. I believe that all 3 incidents were inter-connected and
stemmed from the original interview by Senior Police Fireman
(S.P.F.) "A" with the worker around 08.35.
6. Whether or not the worker had his hand in his pocket or
was supporting a sore back, the escalation of the events is
totally out of proportion to the instigating incident.
7. The original interview obviously got out of control and
should be considered void.
8. On viewing the video at the time of the passenger
incident three observations come to mind. Other passengers
show no sign of distress, S.P.F. "A" appears to scan the
passenger's luggage quite thoroughly, the worker could have
come around the counter to sniff the luggage in question (as
he did earlier with other passengers). In fact it seems to
be the exception rather than the rule that passengers with
trolleys unload them onto the bench for examination.
9. The passenger wrote a letter of complaint which is
explicit about her alleged mistreatment by the worker. This
should be considered in the context that; (a) if she had a
bad back that is no excuse for loose security, she could have
waited outside for her husband, (b) her treatment by the
security staff tended to re-enforce her feeling of grievance,
(c) almost all persons can feel some stress when passing
through security checks.
10. I believe that the Standing Instructions for Post 10
could lead to conflicting pressures being felt by those
charged with security. That however is a matter to be
addressed by the Company. The role of security may at times
be inconsistent with the "Company's core customer service
philosophy."
11. If the worker was rude to the passenger this is a
disciplinary matter which normally, on a first occasion,
could be treated as relatively trivial, especially as an
apology by him was acknowledged by her.
12. On Sunday evening the worker was suspended following an
interview with Airport Police Inspector "B" (A.P.I.) who
believed his authority to be threatened and even ignored by
the worker. Authority has obligations as well as power.
Certain one-to-one interviews are best abandoned to let
matters cool rather than be pursued to a definitive end. It
is also probable that the worker did behave in a provocative
manner at the very least.
13. I note that article 8 on disciplinary procedures
machinery dates from 1971, and that the Company has stated
that "suspension without pay" does not constitute a
disciplinary procedure." I also note that it has never been
applied before in this Force. I do consider that any senior
officer does have a right to suspend "with pay" in
appropriate circumstances. The definition of appropriate is
a matter for the Union and the Company but certainly I do not
believe that the circumstances on the Sunday evening merited
it. Its application then was clearly intended to be
disciplinary.
14. I do not consider that the Company carried out its
investigation in an unfair manner, or denied to the worker
any proscribed rights or of "natural justice."
15. The manner in which the worker made is responses to the
various charges was not suited to an industrial relations
situation."
And he recommended:
"I recommend that the discipline imposed by the Company on the
worker is modified as follows:
(a) That the suspension with pay is considered void.
(b) That the final written warning has an effective life
of 12 months after which it lapses.
(c) That the 4 week suspension without pay is upheld."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
5. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 11th July,
1991. On the 19th July, 1991 the Court visited the work station
in question and viewed the video tape of the incidents.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker disputes the allegations made against him and
has given full and frank accounts of what transpired on the
dates and times in question.
2. The events have been distorted by the supervisor's
concerned. The Rights Commissioner goes some way to
acknowledging this in his findings but not in his
recommendation.
3. The worker has many years experience and has also carried
out his duties in a conscientious manner and to the best of
his ability. This is the first time that disciplinary action
has been taken against him. In view of the fact that there is
a clear conflict of evidence, even among the supervisor's
statements, of the events, the Court is asked to uphold the
workers appeal and to award him compensation in respect of
lost earnings and distress suffered (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company accepts the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. The Company has carried out a full
investigation into the incidents in accordance with agreed
procedures. The worker was afforded every opportunity to
respond and had Union representation throughout the whole
investigation. The Company is satisfied that its conclusions
are correct and the punishment reasonable.
DECISION:
8. Having considered the detailed submissions from the parties
and viewed the video recording of the events which gave rise to
the dispute, the Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be upheld with one
amendment. The Union submitted that the Rights Commissioner erred
in agreeing with the Company's penalty of four weeks' suspension,
as one week referred to an incident which he stated should be
considered void. The Court agrees with this submission and
accordingly finds that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be
upheld, subject to the four weeks suspension being reduced to
three.
The appeal on all other points is rejected.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
15th August, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.