Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91225 Case Number: LCR13314 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GRIGNAN LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
oral evidence at the hearing the Court is satisfied that the
penalty imposed on the worker was too severe in the circumstances.
The Court notes the admission that some verbal abuse did occur.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that a suspension of
two days would have been appropriate and so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91225 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13314
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: GRIGNAN LIMITED
(T/A MUFFINS BAKERY)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed as an apprentice baker
for the past three years. He works three months on night shift
and three months on days. He also attends Kevin St. College in
connection with his training as a baker every Friday from 2 p.m.
to 10 p.m. and on Tuesday once a month from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
On Tuesday 15th January, 1991 the worker attended College and did
not attend work on the Tuesday night. The worker claims that he
had permission to attend the College the previous Tuesday 8th
January but this had been cancelled and put forward to the 15th
January. Management claims that the worker did not inform either
the bakery manager or a named Company director as was the custom
and practice. When contacted by telephone on 16th January, by the
manager, the worker became abusive. He was suspended for one week
without pay by the manager. The worker claims that his suspension
was unfair and requested that the issue be referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. The Company however objected to
such an investigation. The worker then referred the dispute to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 24th May, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The procedure when working the night shift is that the
worker concerned is off on Thursday nights in order to attend
College on Friday. He then goes straight into work from
College on Friday evening. When he is in College on Tuesday,
he works Monday night from 10.00 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. and then
attends College from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. He is then off
on Tuesday night. Management are aware of this work sequence
as it has been in operation for some time.
2. On Wednesday 16th January when contacted by telephone
about not reporting for work on Tuesday night, the worker
explained the situation. He told the Manager that he did not
inform him personally as he had not seen him all week. The
worker did however inform the day shift supervisor and
assumed that the message had been passed on to the manager.
The worker also requested a fellow employee to pass the
message on to the manager and had been advised that this was
done.
3. The worker concerned only became abusive to the manager
when he was told of his week's suspension without pay. The
suspension was unfair in the circumstances and the worker
refused an offer of #50 from the Company on the grounds that
he lost a week's wages and not #50.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's production methods are based on a 7 day 24
hour staff rota system. As the total number of production
staff is nine, spread over a seven day basis on 24 hour
manning, it is clear that if one worker fails to report for
work the customer trading relationship is severely affected.
2. The Company has an emergency procedure whereby any
employee unable to work must contact either the bakery
manager or a named Company director to allow him to make
other arrangements. Each employee in the Company is aware of
this procedure and it was not followed by the worker
concerned in this case.
3. When contacted on the 16th January by the bakery manager
and questioned as to why he had not reported for work the
worker concerned became very abusive during the telephone
conversation. This was witnessed by two other workers at the
time the conversation took place. The Company felt that the
worker's failure to notify either the manager or the director
was unsatisfactory. Coupled with the verbal abuse directed
at the manager the Company had no alternative but to suspend
the worker for one week without pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
oral evidence at the hearing the Court is satisfied that the
penalty imposed on the worker was too severe in the circumstances.
The Court notes the admission that some verbal abuse did occur.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that a suspension of
two days would have been appropriate and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th June, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman