Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD914 Case Number: LCR13207 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising from disciplinary action taken by the Company against two workers who are employed in the catering department.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties finds that the Company dealt with the issues in
accordance with the disciplinary machinery.
The Court finds no grounds to alter the findings of the
disciplinary hearings and recommends they be accepted.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9104 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13207
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from disciplinary action taken by the Company
against two workers who are employed in the catering department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as a cook and a kitchen
porter in the catering services department at Heuston Station. On
the 17th May, 1990 they were members of the catering crew on duty
on the Dublin to Waterford train. The train arrived in Waterford
in the morning and was due to return to Dublin at approximately
8pm. At approximately 2pm the two workers concerned requested and
received permission from their supervisor to leave the train to
get some exercise. While they were absent the train departure
time was brought forward by one hour. The Company claims that
when the two workers reported back for duty at 6.35pm they were
under the influence of alcohol. On 30th May, 1990 both workers
were formally charged in writing with offences in relation to the
consumption of intoxicating liquor on 17th May, 1990 (details
supplied to the Court). The cook was also charged with a similar
offence in relation to an alleged incident on 18th May, 1990.
Their disciplinary hearings commenced on 19th June, 1990 and were
adjourned until 10th/11th July, 1990. On 16th July, 1990 the two
workers were advised in writing of the outcome of the disciplinary
hearings, that they had both been found guilty with the penalty of
dismissal in each case. An appeal hearing on 25th July, 1990
upheld the guilty decision in each case but rescinded the notice
of dismissal and substituted penalties of suspension from duty (3
days for the cook, 2 days for the kitchen porter). The Union
claims that the two workers are innocent of the offences as
charged and are being unfairly disciplined under the Company's
disciplinary procedures. No agreement was reached at local level
and the Union on 20th December, 1990 referred the matter to the
Labour Court for investigation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The hearing took place on 25th
January, 1991. Prior to the hearing the Union agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are innocent of the charges made
against them in relation to the 17th May, 1990. When the two
workers left the train on that date they visited a friend's
house and no alcohol was consumed. This claim is supported
by a letter to that effect from the person they visited
(details supplied to the Court). The Company is wrong to
discipline the workers for something they didn't do.
2. When the two workers returned to the train they
apologised for being late only. They were late because the
train departure had been brought forward in their absence.
If they had known about the earlier departure they would have
returned to the train sooner. They did not receive any
indication that they would be charged with any offences and
were allowed to resume duty. They performed their duties
satisfactorily and no complaints were received from the
passengers.
3. The Company's disciplinary machinery involving a
disciplinary hearing and an appeal to a more senior manager
has proved unsatisfactory in this case. There was a delay
until 30th May, 1990 before the two workers were formally
charged with the offences. The outcome of the disciplinary
investigation is unfair to the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's disciplinary procedures have been in
existence for years and have been agreed with the trade
unions. The two workers concerned have been dealt with fully
in accordance with the agreed disciplinary procedures and the
submissions made on their behalf have been taken fully into
account. The outcome of the appeal for the two workers
demonstrates the fairness of the disciplinary machinery.
2. The Company is always concerned to uphold disciplinary
procedures. It does not refer matters which have been dealt
with by the disciplinary machinery to a third party. By
referring the matter to the Labour Court the Union has taken
it outside agreed practices. The Company is willing to
discuss aspects of the disciplinary machinery with the Union
but the outcome of the present disciplinary matter must
stand.
3. When the two workers concerned reported for duty at
6.35pm on 17th May, 1990 they were allowed to continue
working as meals had to be prepared and passengers had to be
catered for. The workers had difficulty carrying out their
duties and service to the passengers suffered. They
apologised to the supervisor on the return journey.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties finds that the Company dealt with the issues in
accordance with the disciplinary machinery.
The Court finds no grounds to alter the findings of the
disciplinary hearings and recommends they be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8 March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman