Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92615 Case Number: LCR13856 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ANGLO IRISH BEEF PROCESSORS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
The reinstatement of fifteen employees who were dismissed following unofficial industrial action.
Recommendation:
(b) one or more of such employees who were dismissed for
so taking part are subsequently offered
reinstatement or re-engagement and the employee is
not.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered in detail the submissions from the
parties and in particular the accounts of the incident which led
up to the walk-out by the 15 employees at a critical time for
production, which action led to their dismissal.
This was clearly unofficial and irresponsible action on behalf of
the said 15 and cannot in any way be condoned by the Court. The
Court notes that the Union immediately instructed them to return
to work and also sought to negotiate such return. The Company on
their part were and are of the view that the walkout was
predetermined, malicious and possibly organised. For such a
charge to be accepted by the Court, conclusive evidence would have
to be submitted. The Court are not satisfied that the evidence
before it supported the charge as made and are of the view that
there was at least some basis for the workers' initial
misunderstanding of the situation. The Court is therefore of the
view that dismissal is too severe a penalty.
The Court, recognising that no company can condone unofficial
action of the type involved and balancing that against the long
term consequences for the workers involved, is of the view that
the following proposals would provide an equitable solution to the
dispute.
(1) The incident be recorded against the 15 employees and
carry the status of a 'final warning'.
(2) On acceptance by both parties of this Labour Court
Recommendation the 15 employees be reinstated
(3) The interim period be treated as a period of suspension
without pay.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92615 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13856
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ANGLO IRISH BEEF PROCESSORS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The reinstatement of fifteen employees who were dismissed
following unofficial industrial action.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 80-100 workers in the meat
processing business. It is part of the Goodman International
Group of Companies. At present it is a non-Union Company, but
S.I.P.T.U. is organising there and is awaiting recognition. On
the morning of the 30th September, 1992, a walk-out by 15 workers
took place, which led to the 15 being dismissed. The Union
contends that the walk-out was the result of a misunderstanding by
the workers regarding the termination of employment of a
colleague. The Company claims that the action was malicious in
intent, pre-meditated and carried out with a purpose to cause
maximum damage to the Company. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on the 30th of September, 1992 and a
conciliation conference was held held on the 1st of October, 1992
at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 5th October, 1992 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 27th October, 1992 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The walkout by the 15 workers followed the termination of
employment of another worker, who is now in employment
elsewhere, and whose parting from the Company was amicable.
The message that reached the 15 workers however, was that
their colleague had been dismissed. One of the workers
approached the Plant Manager to clarify the situation and
following intervention by the Group Personnel Manager,
conversation became heated, following which the walk-out took
place. A Union representative was contacted by the workers
and he advised them of the impropriety of their actions, and
instructed them to return to work. The Union contacted the
Group Personnel Manager, who stated that he did not know why
the walkout had taken place and he did not know if the 15
workers would be allowed to return to work. He advised that
when he had checked with his superiors, he would contact the
Union. The workers returned to the factory after lunch, but
were not admitted. At 4 p.m. the Company had still not
contacted the Union and lock-out pickets were placed on the
plant.
2. The workers should be reinstated to their former positions
on the grounds that:
(i) They are young, and inexperienced in Industrial
Relations procedures.
(ii) They attempted to rectify the situation when the
error of their ways was pointed out to them.
(iii) The Company over-reacted in dismissing them. Other
disciplinary resources should have been applied
since this was the first occasion such an incident
occurred.
(iv) The Company, (referring to the 15), state that
"...they were under no illusion that if they did
leave, their employment could be terminated..."
This statement is untrue, as no such warning was
issued.
(v) The workers will give written guarantees that there
will be no recurrence of unofficial industrial
action.
(vi) The workers' actions were not pre-meditated and
designed to cause maximum disruption. Their
actions were a misguided attempt to show solidarity
with a colleague whom they mistakenly believed was
dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The events that took place on 30th September, 1992 were
orchestrated and timed in a fashion to cause maximum damage to
the Company.
(i) The walk-out took place at the peak time for
production at the plant. Animals were 'in the
chute' (a process that cannot be reversed),
awaiting slaughter.
(ii) Damage to carcasses of animals just killed would
have been severe as regulations dictate that a
maximum of 30 minutes only may elapse between
killing and gutting a beast.
(iii) Delay in the processing of beef means the loss of
'hot weight' which would affect the prices paid to
suppliers.
In view of the fact that beef is a perishable product and that
the industry works on very tight margins, the action of the 15
workers was completely irresponsible. Their dismissal can
only be deemed to be fair and reasonable.
2. No consistent logical reason was given by the Union for
the workers' action. The contention that the workers were
young and inexperienced does not stand up. Many of the 15
workers have considerable experience in A.I.B.P. and in other
meat Companies.
3. Section 5 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 sets out
clearly the position vis-a-vis dismissals, for taking part in
strike or other industrial action. Such dismissals are deemed
by Section 5(2) to be unfair if:
(a) one or more employees of the same employer, who took
part in the strike or other industrial action were
not dismissed for so taking part,
or
(b) one or more of such employees who were dismissed for
so taking part are subsequently offered
reinstatement or re-engagement and the employee is
not.