Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91663 Case Number: LCR13633 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary measures taken by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the circumstances described in the
submissions made by the parties to the Court, the Court is
satisfied that the outcome of the disciplinary procedures was not
unfair in respect of either of the instances described. The Court
therefore recommends that the findings of the appeal hearing
should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91663 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13633
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary measures taken by the Company
against a worker.
BACKGROUND;
2. The worker concerned is a locomotive driver based in Athlone.
The dispute relates to disciplinary measures taken against him by
Management in respect of two incidents in 1989 and 1990. He was
given a "caution" in respect of his refusal to operate the 20.30
mail train (originating in Dublin) from Athlone to Galway on the
17th September, 1989, and was given "one day's suspension and
warning as to future behaviour" in respect of his failure to
submit a written report in respect of damage to carriages of the
13.10 passenger train from Dublin to Westport on the 16th May,
1990. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated.
Management rejected the claim. The Union referred the issue to
the Labour Relations Commission but the Company was unwilling to
attend a conciliation conference on the grounds that both cases
were fully dealt with under agreed procedures which were
previously endorsed by the Labour Court (L.C.R. 13277 refers).
Subsequently the Union 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. The Court
investigated the dispute in Athlone on 1st April, 1992.
(1) Incident 1 - Athlone - Galway Mail Train
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned came on duty at 16.30 on the 17th
September, 1989. He was rostered to cover 6 hours 40 minutes,
the standard duty for a driver. He was due to finish driving
duties in Athlone at 23.10. He enquired from his supervisor
as to what his finishing time would be and was advised 23.10.
Because of a failure in communications between Management and
a rostered driver, that driver was unable to take the mail
train from Athlone to Galway. The worker concerned could not
be blamed for this failure in communication.
2. No provision was made in Athlone to cover any eventuality
which might arise after the finishing time of the worker
concerned. Within the Company's conditions of service, a
locomotive driver may be rostered for up to 9 hours. Had this
roster been in operation the worker concerned might have been
on duty until 1.30 a.m. However he was not rostered for the 9
hour duty and was charged with causing a delay of 94 minutes
by not taking the mail train to Galway. The fact that another
driver missed a connection and failed to turn up for his
roster is not the fault of the worker concerned. Had he
consented to work the Athlone Galway train he would not have
finished until 3.20 a.m. almost 11 hours after coming on duty.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rostered driver who was due to take the train from
Athlone to Galway missed a connection and was unavailable when
the train arrived in Athlone at 22.46. The worker concerned
was rostered "as required on the night in question". He was
instructed to take the mail train to Galway and refused to
carry out the instruction. An "as required" driver is obliged
to cover all locomotive driving eventualities which may arise
during his turn of duty i.e. a rostered driver being unable to
report for duty or engine breakdown etc. In this instance the
duties of the worker included provision of cover for working
the 22.46 Athlone/Galway train. The Company would have
provided transport by taxi from Galway to Athlone on
completion of the duty.
2. Because of the worker's refusal to work the train to
Galway it was necessary to call in an off-duty driver to
perform this duty resulting in the train's departure from
Athlone being delayed 1 hour 34 minutes. There was a
consequential knock-on effect, resulting in an additional cost
to the Company incurred through having to retain staff on an
overtime basis at all stations between Athlone and Galway.
3. In accordance with agreed disciplinary procedures the
worker was formally changed in writing. The findings of the
disciplinary hearing were issued on the 18th December, 1989
and a "caution" was imposed. The penalty was upheld (on
appeal by the Union) by the Regional Manager on 7th September,
1990.
Incident 2 - Dublin - Westport train:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker concerned, who was the driver of the Dublin -
Westport train on the 16th May, 1990, received a radio message
from Centralised Traffic Control (C.T.C.) that there may have
been damage to carriages sustained on the way out of Heuston
Station. At the next scheduled stop (Newbridge Station) the
worker concerned and the guard examined the locomotive and
carriages. The damage to the carriages was obvious. In the
circumstances the worker concerned considered that it would
not be prudent to submit a written report. He did, however,
phone C.T.C. and advised of the damage. The conversation was
recorded on tape.
2. The worker concerned should not have been asked to
complete a written report. The request should have been made
to the train guard who is responsible for the carriages. The
Company could have obtained any information needed from the
worker concerned by way of an interview. He was quite willing
to co-operate. The Company's use of the disciplinary
machinery is unwarranted in this case. It is a very outdated
approach to the issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
6. 1. Under the provisions of the Company's rule book a driver
is required to submit a full written report on the
circumstances of any abnormal occurrence before signing off
duty. The worker concerned refused to complete a report on
the incident relating to damage to the carriages, when he was
requested to do so by his supervisor. The case was processed
through the agreed disciplinary machinery and the penalty
imposed of "one day's suspension and warning as to future
behaviour" was upheld (on appeal) by the Regional Manager on
the 7th September, 1990. In both cases the Company treated
the worker in accordance with procedures and the outcome was
not unfair in either case.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the circumstances described in the
submissions made by the parties to the Court, the Court is
satisfied that the outcome of the disciplinary procedures was not
unfair in respect of either of the instances described. The Court
therefore recommends that the findings of the appeal hearing
should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
23rd April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.