Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD922 Case Number: LCR13540 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TIPPERARY CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY LTD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Disciplinary action taken against a worker and departure from normal Industrial Relations procedures.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered at length the written submissions and the
extensive oral evidence presented by the parties, the Court does
not find grounds to recommend concession of the unions claim in
respect of its member.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD922 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13540
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TIPPERARY CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY LTD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disciplinary action taken against a worker and departure from
normal Industrial Relations procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed with the Creamery as a
driver on bulk milk collection. A complaint was made to the
Creamery by a supplier in respect of an incident which occurred on
15th March, 1991 while the worker was collecting milk from the
supplier's farm. On 26th march, 1991 the worker who was on a day
off work was requested to go to the Creamery's office to clarify
figures in relation to milk collection. On his arrival at the
office two members of management discussed the supplier's
complaint with him. The worker confirmed that an incident had
taken place. The worker was informed that the matter was a
dismissible offence. He pleaded for his job. The worker signed a
handwritten document which stated that he wished to resign his
position as a driver on milk collection. He accepted an offer of
re-deployment into the factory. Subsequent to the meeting of the
26th March, 1991 an exchange of letters took place between the
worker's solicitors and solicitors representing the Creamery. On
the advice of his solicitors the worker took up the matter with
his Union. The Union claim that the worker should have been given
the opportunity to have Union representation at the meeting of
26th March, 1991, the action taken by the Creamery was unfair and
that the methods used in the investigation of the matter are
completely at odds with good Industrial Relations practices. The
Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 21st August, 1991 but no
agreement could be reached. The Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. Prior to the Court's investigation of the matter on 16th
January, 1992 the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is not guilty of any wrong doing in this
matter. He was placed in a compromising position not of his
own making.
2. The worker has for 22 years carried out his duties
conscientiously, without any complaint against him from
management or customers.
3. If the Creamery had not already judged the worker he
would have been told in advance that there was a problem or
complaint when he was asked to attend the meeting on 26th
March, 1991, thereby, giving him a chance to think clearly and
decide if he wanted a witness present.
4. At all times during the meeting the Creamery stressed
the need for confidentiality. The constant stressing of the
effect of the matter becoming public on the worker was the
most damning threat that the Creamery could make.
5. The note signed by the worker is invalid and has no
credibility. The worker was embarrassed that there was an
implication that he acted dishonourably. He signed the note
under duress.
6. On reflection the worker decided to go public and defend
his good name. Given the appropriate opportunity in the first
instance that would probably have been his choice.
7. Proper Industrial Relations procedures should be applied
in the future. The worker should be allowed to opt for his
former job in February, 1992 and he should be compensated for
any loss of earnings sustained in this matter.
CREAMERY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The nature of the relationship between the worker and
the milk suppliers is based on trust. This trust has been
seriously breached. The worker's behaviour must at all times
be exemplary.
2. The sensitive nature of the incident and the worker's
admission and confirmation of the details surrounding the
incident placed the management in an extremely difficult
position.
3. The worker admitted he was in an area where he should
not have been.
4. The worker voluntarily resigned from milk assembly and
opted for re-deployment. He was asked on two occasions if he
wished to have his Union present but he declined indicating
that he wished the matter to remain confidential.
5. Details of the complaint are set out in the supplier's
sworn statement (details with the Court)
6. The Creamery has offered to train the worker for driving
duties other than milk collection.
RECOMMENDATION
5. Having considered at length the written submissions and the
extensive oral evidence presented by the parties, the Court does
not find grounds to recommend concession of the unions claim in
respect of its member.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
30th January, 1992 -------------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman