Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91459 Case Number: AD91104 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation S.T. 238/91 concerning the worker's demotion.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. The Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation was not unreasonable in the
circumstances as outlined. The Court accordingly rejects the
appeal.
The Court further considers that in view of the claimant's
previous excellent record, the Corporation should sympathetically
review his position after a period of 12 months with a view to
restoring him to his original position in Waterworks or to a post
which would at least partially restore his earnings to their
former level.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
C91459 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10491
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation S.T. 238/91 concerning the worker's demotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Corporation
in February, 1967. For the past sixteen years he has been
employed as an established rotary turncock in the waterworks
section. On the 12th May, 1991 following the commencement of the
midnight to 6.00 a.m. shift at the Marrowbone Lane depot, the
worker concerned was involved in an incident with a fellow worker
(details supplied to the Court). He received a three week
suspension without pay pending an investigation of the incident by
the Corporation. The Corporation held disciplinary hearings on
the 14th May and the 24th May. The worker was represented by his
Trade Union. Management decided that the worker should be
redeployed as a general operative with effect from 29th May, 1991
and that he should receive a written warning. The Corporation
confirmed its decision on 10th June, 1991 following an appeal by
the Union. The Union rejected the Corporation's decision and on
the 19th June, 1991 referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation. On the 16th July, 1991 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:-
"His relationship with the small group he worked with has been
damaged beyond repair. He therefore could not be returned to
the duties concerned. I recommend that his claim for
restoration fails.
I feel there are small administrative aspects of his
suspension without pay and in these circumstances I recommend
that the Corporation sympathetically considers payment of two
weeks pay without precedent or prejudice. Finally I
recommend that his final written warning stands".
The worker subsequently appealed the recommendation to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th November, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned reported to the turncock's office at
10.40 p.m. on the 11th June, 1991. He advised the duty
turncock that he intended visiting his parents who lived
nearby, and that he would be returning to do his own shift
later that night. He reported for duty at 11.58 p.m. and
signed the duty log. At this time there was no one in the
office, and no duty call recorded in the log. The worker
concerned used the radio control and after approximately half
an hour made contact with the other turncock who together with
a driver were doing the worker's duty. He requested them to
return to base as he wished to carry out the duty himself.
When the other turncock and the driver arrived back at the
office some verbal abuse was exchanged between the worker
concerned and the other turncock. The driver interjected and
verbal exchanges took place between him and the worker
concerned. The exchanges continued into the outside yard and
the worker concerned sustained injuries necessitating medical
treatment. Although the incident was reported to the Gardai
the worker did not press charges against the driver; he
decided to leave matters in the hands of the Corporation.
2. The worker has been treated in a very unjust fashion by
the Corporation and subsequently by the Rights Commissioner in
upholding the Corporation's decision to demote him to the
grade of general operative. He has a good record of
employment and has not been involved in any incidents in his
long service with the Corporation. He did not instigate the
incident referred to in the outside yard of the depot. He has
a very good working relationship with the other turncocks at
the depot and is seeking reinstatement to his old position.
He has suffered a significant drop in earnings as a result of
his redeployment.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the incident of 12th May, 1991 a disciplinary
hearing was conducted at the waterworks section on the 14th
May, 1991. A summary of the incident was outlined as follows:
"On Saturday 11th May, 1991 at 12.00 midnight the worker
concerned was absent from the designated workplace at the
commencement of his tour of duty and for a period
thereafter. He disrupted the orderly execution of the
turncock's route work by requiring the van to return from
Leeson Street to the waterworks depot in Morrowbone Lane.
He verbally abused without proper cause the motor driver
and the other rotary turncock on their return to the
depot. He prevented the driver from signing off in the
log book. He threw a bunch of keys at the driver and
continued the attack in an outside yard".
2. A further disciplinary hearing was held on the 24th May,
1991. The worker attended the hearing and was accompanied by
his trade union representative. A statement from the rotary
turncock who witnessed the incident confirmed that the driver
was not responsible for any of the happenings. The
Corporation took the decision to redeploy the worker concerned
as a general operative and to issue him a written warning.
This decision was confirmed following an appeal by the Union
at a further hearing on 10th June, 1991.
3. Management considers that its decision was fair and
reasonable. The worker concerned was in a position of trust
in providing an essential emergency service as a rotary
turncock. The incident of 12th May could have impaired the
efficient provision of this service in that if an emergency
had arisen the Corporation could not respond effectively.
4. The Corporation is satisfied that the terms of the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation are the minimum disciplinary
measures that are appropriate and that their imposition is
fully justified. The Corporation requests the Court to uphold
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. The Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation was not unreasonable in the
circumstances as outlined. The Court accordingly rejects the
appeal.
The Court further considers that in view of the claimant's
previous excellent record, the Corporation should sympathetically
review his position after a period of 12 months with a view to
restoring him to his original position in Waterworks or to a post
which would at least partially restore his earnings to their
former level.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
2nd December, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.