Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92143 Case Number: AD92155 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 430/91 concerning discipline imposed on a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion, in the light of the submissions
made, that having regard to the requirements of the job, and the
consequences to the Company of failure to attend on time, that the
warning as recommended by the Rights Commissioners is reasonable.
The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92143 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD15592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 430/91 concerning discipline imposed on a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a laboratory technician
with the Company. His normal working day is 8.00 a.m. - 4.30 p.m.
Due to the nature of the business, production lines must be tested
prior to their 8.00 a.m. start. In order to do this quality
assurance staff, including the worker are rostered to be present
from 7.00 a.m. each morning. This extra hour is considered to be
overtime and is paid at the rate of double time. There are
currently 4 workers on the early duty roster with 2 reporting for
7 a.m. duty every alternative morning.
On the 8th October, 1991, a day on which the worker concerned was
rostered for a 7.00 a.m. start, the worker did not report for duty
until 8.00 a.m. As a result of this 'late' the Company furnished
the worker with a final written warning. Earlier, in May, 1991
the worker had been issued with a letter which stated that should
further incidents of lateness occur he would be removed from the
overtime roster. At that time the worker, though not pleased with
such a prospect was willing to accept it. In view of the letter
of 22nd May the Union considered that the issue of a final written
warning in October was too severe. At a meeting with the Union on
5th November, 1991, the Company offered to reduce its action to a
written warning. The Union rejected this offer and referred the
dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's hearing took place on
19th December, 1991 and the following recommendation issued on
19th February, 1992.
"Recommendation
I recommend that the Union and the worker accept the previous
Company offer to reduce the final written warning to a
written warning in settlement of this dispute".
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The Rights Commissioners recommendation was appealed to the Labour
Court by the Union in accordance with Section 36(2) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 13th April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On receipt of the letter of 22nd May, 1991, the worker
accepted that he might be taken off the overtime roster. It
was a situation which he was willing to accept. The Company
subsequently changed its mind and altered the action it
proposed to take without advising the worker involved. It is
unacceptable to the Union that something as serious as a final
written warning should issue to the worker without their being
any prior indication of such action having been given to him.
2. The disciplinary action imposed on the worker was as a
result of his failure to report for overtime. The overtime in
this case is unusual in that it applies to a worker every
second morning and can, by its very nature, prove awkward and
difficult to maintain. Moreover the overtime is not
compulsory and as such, breaches should not be punishable.
The Union contends that no penalty should be imposed on the
worker concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned has a history of lateness and
absenteeism for which he has been spoken to about several
times. On foot of the letter of 22nd May, 1991 it was
originally the Company's intention to remove the worker from
the early morning roster but on consideration it was felt that
this would be impractical as it would have necessitated more
frequent rostering of the 3 remaining staff and it would
trivialise a situation which the Company regarded as very
serious.
2. The Company operates high speed production lines for which
very high quality standards are demanded. It is therefore
imperative that all tests and preparations are carried out
before production commences at 8.00 a.m. Failure by quality
assurance staff to report for early morning duty at 7.00 a.m.
can result in up to an hour's production being lost. This is
a very serious situation which cannot be tolerated by the
Company.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the opinion, in the light of the submissions
made, that having regard to the requirements of the job, and the
consequences to the Company of failure to attend on time, that the
warning as recommended by the Rights Commissioners is reasonable.
The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
29th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.