Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91419 Case Number: LCR13412 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Union that a signalman in the Central Traffic Control (C.T.C.) at Connolly Station was too harshly treated under the Company's disciplinary procedures.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the Company/Union grievance procedures have been gone through
the Court is of the view the Company's position should be accepted
by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91419 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13412
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a signalman in the Central Traffic
Control (C.T.C.) at Connolly Station was too harshly treated under
the Company's disciplinary procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 3rd May, 1991 there were two signalmen on night duty at the
C.T.C. suburban complex at Connolly Station. At approximately
4.15 a.m. the executive-in-charge of the C.T.C. complex inspected
the work stations of the two signalmen. Following the inspection,
both signalmen were formally charged in writing on 7th May, 1991
with being asleep while on duty. The charges were made in
accordance with the Company's agreed disciplinary machinery. The
signalman concerned (Worker A) was charged as follows:-
(1) "Gross neglect in that you abandoned your duties of
Signalman in Suburban C.T.C. during your rostered turn of
duty on Friday/Saturday, 3rd/4th May, 1991.
(2) Being asleep in the C.T.C. Centre during your rostered
turn of duty on Friday/Saturday, 3rd/4th May, 1991."
The other signalman (Worker B) was charged as follows:-
(1) "Being asleep at your post as signalman at the console in
suburban C.T.C. during your rostered turn of duty on
Friday/Saturday, 3rd/4th May, 1991.
(2) Being involved in irregular working in the C.T.C. during
your rostered turn of duty on Friday/Saturday, 3rd/4th
May, 1991.
Following disciplinary hearings both signalmen were found guilty
of the charges in question and a penalty of demotion to
depotperson and withdrawal of signalling certificate was imposed
in each case. Following appeal hearings the penalty imposed on
worker A was confirmed. In the case of worker B the charge of
being asleep while on duty was withdrawn but two days suspension
was imposed in respect of the charge of irregular working. The
Union claims that worker A was too harshly treated and that his
demotion as a penalty is unacceptable. The Union threatened to
take industrial action on 8th August, 1991 unless the punishment
was withdrawn. Following local level discussions the Union on 8th
August, 1991 referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 4th September, 1991. Prior to the hearing
the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the executive in charge inspected the C.T.C. centre
on 4th May, 1991, worker A was on his tea break. Worker A was
lying down but was not asleep. He had not abandoned or
neglected his duties which were being attended to by worker B.
2. At the appeal stage of the disciplinary procedures the
Company withdrew the first charge against worker B of being
asleep on duty. The Company decided that worker B was not
asleep, that he was in his correct position and in full
control of operations. The work was therefore being performed
in a safe manner and safety was not jeopardised in any way
while worker A was on his tea-break. The charge of gross
neglect by worker A should not have been upheld at the appeal
stage.
3. There are precedents when signalmen have been charged with
similar offences and were dealt with under the disciplinary
procedures in a humane and acceptable manner. In this case
the manner in which worker A was treated is unprecedented and
harsh in the extreme.
4. Worker A has worked his way up to the top grade as
signalmen in the C.T.C. centre. In doing so he has shown his
ability and dedication to the job. Since the alleged incident
of 4th May, 1991 he has continued to work as signalman and on
occasions without supervision. The proposed punishment to
demote him to depotperson is too harsh and bears no
relationship to the alleged offence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the morning of 4th May, 1991 the executive-in-charge of
the C.T.C. centre discovered worker A away from his post
sleeping in a makeshift bed. Worker B appeared to be asleep
in a seated position at his post. On 7th May, 1991 both
signalmen were formally charged in writing in accordance with
the agreed disciplinary machinery. Both signalmen were found
guilty following a disciplinary hearing and the penalty of
demotion and withdrawal of signalling certificate was imposed
in each case. At the appeal stage worker B was given the
benefit of the doubt in respect of the charge of being asleep
while on duty and the charge was withdrawn. The penalty of
demotion and withdrawal of signally certificate was confirmed
in the case of worker A.
2. The C.T.C. centre plays an important role in ensuring
safety of operations. It is essential that signalmen on duty
are fully alert in the observation of level crossing screen
monitors and the operation of the signalling console. The
abandonment of signalling duties has serious implications for
safety. In this case the gross neglect and abandonment of his
duties by worker A was deliberate. In the circumstances the
punishment imposed of worker A is appropriate.
3. Because of the serious nature of the offence the Company's
trust and confidence in worker A has been reduced.
Accordingly the Company arranged for a supervisor to monitor
the night duty performed by worker A. The Company provided
the additional supervision so that worker A could continue
duties in the C.T.C. centre pending the outcome of the
disciplinary procedures. This arrangement is still in place.
4. The penalty of reduction in grade and withdrawal of
competence certificates has been imposed in a number of other
cases, particularly where matters related to safety in
operations. In a number of recommendations the Court has
upheld the Company's position regarding the operation of the
agreed disciplinary procedures. Worker A has been properly
dealt with through the agreed disciplinary procedures and the
outcome should stand and be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the Company/Union grievance procedures have been gone through
the Court is of the view the Company's position should be accepted
by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th September, 1991 ________________
A.S./J.C. Deputy Chairman.