Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92669 Case Number: LCR13900 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LEVER BROTHERS IRELAND LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the disciplinary action taken by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
and statements submitted by the parties to the dispute.
The Court is concerned at the reported breakdown of interpersonal
relations on the factory floor and urges both parties to take all
steps necessary to resolve the situation.
In the light of the conflicting evidence presented as to the
nature of the dispute which occurred between the employees on the
stated date the Court is of the view that the Company's proposed
action is too severe in the circumstances. It is accepted that an
incident occurred involving Mr. T. and the Court recommends that
the Company's proposed action be reduced to the loss of 3 days
wages.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92669 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13900
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LEVER BROTHERS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the disciplinary action taken by the
Company against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed as a shunter driver and his job entails
unloading containers and placing the discharged pallets in racks
in the warehouse. The worker requires the use of a forklift truck
to enable him to carry out his duties.
3. On the morning of 22nd June, 1992 an altercation took place
between the worker and a colleague over the use of a forklift
truck. Following this incident two workers complained to
management alleging that the worker had verbally abused them. The
Company investigated the matter and had a meeting with the Union
on 5th August, 1992. The Company decided to suspend the worker,
without pay, for one week, remove him from his duties as shunter
and return to him to normal warehouse duties (this would entail a
drop in his pay). The Company also decided to issue him with a
final written warning.
4. The Union objected to the proposed disciplinary action and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 16th
September, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 23rd
September, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission
with the consent of the parties referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on
4th December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. There is a history of bad working relations on a personal
level in this particular area of the Company. The Union has
drawn attention to in the past.
2. There are conflicting statements regarding the incident,
which contradict the events as retold by the complainants
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company in making its decision have taken into account
a previous incident involving the worker. This is unfair as
the earlier incident related to a different matter which was
investigated fully and resolved.
4. One of the complainants involved has previously made
complaints before against his colleagues, some of which were
found to be unsubstantiated.
5. In view of the conflicting evidence and the history of bad
relations among some of the workers it is the Unions opinion
that the disciplinary action being imposed on the worker
would make a bad situation worse.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In view of the recent history in the Company a letter
dated 5th May, 1992 issued to all workers stating, inter alia,
that the Company viewed, as a serious matter, workers verbally
abusing their colleagues during the course of their duties.
The letter also stated that such an action could lead to
dismissal. This letter issued with the approval and knowledge
of the Union.
2. The Company has investigated the incident fully and is
satisfied that it has acted in a fair and reasonable manner
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company should have dismissed the worker but made
every effort to avoid this ultimate penalty. The decision to
transfer the worker is in his own best interests and is
beneficial to all concerned.
4. The Company has the right to discipline workers when it
considers it necessary. Disciplinary action was clearly
required in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
and statements submitted by the parties to the dispute.
The Court is concerned at the reported breakdown of interpersonal
relations on the factory floor and urges both parties to take all
steps necessary to resolve the situation.
In the light of the conflicting evidence presented as to the
nature of the dispute which occurred between the employees on the
stated date the Court is of the view that the Company's proposed
action is too severe in the circumstances. It is accepted that an
incident occurred involving Mr. T. and the Court recommends that
the Company's proposed action be reduced to the loss of 3 days
wages.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
17th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.