Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92341 Case Number: AD92183 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 127/92 concerning the demotion of a binman to general operative.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly the two general notices referred to by the Council as
warnings, the Court, whilst in no way condoning unsafe working
practices is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should be amended to allow the worker to return to
binman's status with effect from 1st August, 1992.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92341 APPEAL DECISION AD18392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 to 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 127/92 concerning the demotion of a binman
to general operative.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned took up duty with the Council in March,
1989 and is employed in the Robinhood Environment Depot. The
Council has a policy that employees engaged in refuse bin
collection should not allow themselves to be carried on the back
of refuse vehicles. General notices regarding this policy were
issued to the depot in 1989 and 1990. On 31st December, 1991 the
worker concerned was engaged in bin-collection duties and was seen
standing on the rear of a bin-collection vehicle. The worker was
immediately transferred from bin-collection duties to general
operative duties at the tiphead. The Union claims that this
punishment is too severe and that only a written warning is
warranted The Council claims that the correct disciplinary action
was taken. The dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner
on 13th April, 1992 and he issued the following recommendation on
6th May, 1992:-
"I recommend in all the circumstances that the claimant
remains "stood down" until the 31/12/92. He should be
returned to Binman status as and from the 1/1/1993 holding
the place he possessed on the Binman's list at 1/1/92 and he
should on that occasion receive a reminder in relation to
unsafe practices on the Bin Cars prior to resumption."
On 9th June, 1992 the Union appealed against the recommendation
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 10th July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that the worker was standing on the
back of a bin collection vehicle at the time he was
disciplined. However, at no stage was he a danger to the
public or to himself. The disciplinary action taken against
the work for such a minor offence was too severe and a more
reasonable penalty should be imposed.
2. The worker did not get any personal written warning that
he would be disciplined if he stood at the back of a bin-
collection vehicle. He should receive such a written warning
as punishment.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Standing on the rear of a bin-collection vehicle while
it is in motion is an inherently dangerous practice. The
worker was warned on no fewer than three previous occasions
not to engage in this practice in the interests of his
personal safety. Despite these three warnings, the worker
deliberately disobeyed this instruction.
2. A few weeks prior to the incident which occurred on 31st
December, 1991, the worker, along with the other members of
his crew, were involved in an accident. Following this
accident, the worker and the rest of the crew members were
advised that under no circumstances were they to stand on the
rear of a refuse-collection vehicle while it was in motion.
Despite this, within a few weeks, the worker engaged in the
unsafe practice again.
3. Under the 1989 Safety Act, a statutory duty is imposed
on all employees to perform their tasks in a safe manner.
Part of the statutory duty is to comply with safety
instructions. It is clear from this incident that the worker
has little or no regard for his own personal safety and if he
is retained on bin-collection duties, he will be a liability
to the County Council.
4. In all the circumstances of the case the punishment
meted out by the Council has been more than lenient. The
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly the two general notices referred to by the Council as
warnings, the Court, whilst in no way condoning unsafe working
practices is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should be amended to allow the worker to return to
binman's status with effect from 1st August, 1992.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th July, 1992 John O'Connell
A.S./M.D. ---------------------------------
Deputy Chairman