Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91257 Case Number: AD9149 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FRUIT OF THE LOOM INTERNATIONAL - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 366/90 concerning disciplinary action taken against a worker.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional oral evidence presented at the hearing the Court
considers that:-
- the suspension of three days should stand.
- the written warning should remain in force for twelve
months.
The Court also considers that, as agreed with the parties at the
hearing, it would be more appropriate that the question of
recognition as shopsteward is dealt with directly in discussion
between the Union and the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91257 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4991
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: FRUIT OF THE LOOM INTERNATIONAL
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 366/90 concerning disciplinary action
taken against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 1,800 people. It manufactures, sells and
distributes branded T-shirts and sweat-shirts.
3. The worker commenced employment with the Company in July,
1987. She is a shop steward for her unit. It is alleged by the
worker's supervisor that the worker assaulted her. It is also
alleged that the worker left her place of employment without
permission.
4. The worker was suspended with pay from the 27th September,
1990, the date of the alleged incidents, to the 1st October, 1990,
to allow for an investigation of the allegations.
5. The Company having carried out its investigation, suspended
the worker without pay for seven days, issued her with a final
written warning and informed her that she could be no longer
recognised as a union representative. The issue was then referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 20th March,
1991. On the 11th April, 1991 he issued the following findings:-
"FINDINGS
1. I am satisfied that a technical assault took place. No
employee no matter what grade may physically touch another
during a verbal exchange or otherwise.
2. I am equally satisfied that the supervisor may have
overstepped the mark in relation to a remark from the
claimant in relation to a possible shortage of work.
3. Clearly the claimant became very upset and I am also
satisfied that her condition led her to leave the plant
without proper authorisation which is a very serious
offence.
4. I acknowledge that the company accepts this later point
because it could have taken a more serious view of the
matter.
5. In relation to the discipline imposed and the severity
of which is appealed by the union, I am not happy that the
company should choose to withhold recognition of the
claimant as a union representative as this raises very
serious questions of the right of workers to freely choose
their representatives under agreement at shop floor level".
He also recommended as follows:-
"I Recommend that the claimant has her period of suspension
reduced to three days. That she receives a written warning
to expire on the 1st April, 1991 (six months). That the
Company lifts its ban on recognition on or after the 1st
July, 1991 to allow for a period of cooling off. If the
claimant is re-elected after that date by her colleagues,
then she should be afforded the usual facilities allowed to
shop stewards at the plant which I believe to be very good."
7. The Company and the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeals in
Letterkenny on 12th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The evidence does not support the Rights Commissioner's
finding that a technical assault took place.
2. The worker had her Supervisor's permission to leave her
place of work.
3. In his finding the Rights Commissioner said that he was
unhappy that recognition of the worker as a union
representative was withheld because it interfered with the
right of workers to freely choose their representatives, yet
he recommended that the ban remain for eight months.
4. The Plant Agreement on the disciplinary procedures does
not provide for the withdrawal of recognition from union
representatives.
5. The Union treats all allegations of assault seriously.
Workers have the right to work without fear from any source.
6. The Union's investigations which included interviewing
witnesses, did not find any evidence of assault.
7. The worker's rights in natural justice were denied her,
in that she was not allowed to defend herself face to face
with her accusers or their witnesses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company decided to take disciplinary action after it
had carried out a full and thorough investigation during which
the worker's representative was afforded an opportunity to
interview the witnesses to the incident. The Company was left
with little doubt but that a serious breach of discipline had
occurred which could not be allowed to go unchecked.
2. The worker left the premises without permission. This
is entirely unacceptable and undermines the fundamentals of
workplace relations. The worker left the Company premises on
the day in question, despite several requests made to her by
the supervisor to remain and talk the matter through.
3. The Rights Commissioner in his findings acknowledges
that the worker left "the plant without proper authorisation
which is a very serious offence", but did not give this breach
of discipline sufficient weight in his recommendation.
4. The investigations revealed that the worker physically
assaulted her supervisor, that she did so in the presence of
others, and did so without due cause or provocation. The
Rights Commissioner was satisfied that a technical assault
took place.
5. The Company rejects the finding that "the supervisor may
have overstepped the mark in relation to a remark from the
claimant in relation to a possible shortage of work". This
finding, in itself, is inconsistent with the facts as
interpreted by the Company and indeed with the Rights
Commissioners findings that an assault did in fact take place.
6. The decision to withdraw recognition from the worker as
a shop steward, was prompted by a view that it was wholly
unacceptable for the Company to recognise an employee who
behaved irresponsibly to represent the interests of other
employees. The Company wishes to emphasise that this decision
related to the need to maintain integrity between the Company
and the Union in the conduct of industrial relations within
the Company.
7. The question of discipline in this instance only relates
to the worker's position as an employee and not as a shop
steward.
DECISION:
10. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional oral evidence presented at the hearing the Court
considers that:-
- the suspension of three days should stand.
- the written warning should remain in force for twelve
months.
The Court also considers that, as agreed with the parties at the
hearing, it would be more appropriate that the question of
recognition as shopsteward is dealt with directly in discussion
between the Union and the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th June, 1991 ---------------
M.D./U.S. Chairman