Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92119 Case Number: AD92163 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PLUMBING UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 456/91.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the detailed submissions made by the
parties and is entirely satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of
the case. The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation
should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92119 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD16392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PLUMBING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 456/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a plumber with
the Council in September, 1989. From early on in the worker's
employment the Council was dissatisfied with his work
performance and with his attitude in general. On the 29th
January, 1991 a meeting was held between the Council and the
worker and his Union at which alleged incidents of non
co-operation and the worker's performance were discussed. As a
result of this meeting the Council issued a letter to the worker
on 11th February, 1991 advising him of its intention to suspend
him for three days. This letter also served as a final written
warning. The Union objected to the imposition of the suspension
and indicated its intention of referring it to a third party,
possibly a Rights Commissioner. Arrangements regarding the
suspension were made at local level between the worker and his
supervisor whereby the suspension was to be served on separate,
days. When the personnel department became aware that 2 days
suspension had been proceeded with it attempted unsuccessfully
to cancel the third day.
As a result of subsequent incidents (details supplied to the
Court) the Council considered terminating the worker's
employment but on the intervention of the Union chose instead to
suspend the worker for 2 weeks. This decision was communicated
to the worker by letter dated 25th November, 1991 and was due to
take effect from 2nd December, 1991. The worker denied the
allegations and the Union referred the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
A Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 13th
December, 1991 and the following recommendation issued on 25th
January, 1991.
I wish to give the claimant some relief if only for the
impassioned pleas of his Trade Union Official. I only hope
that he can change his attitude, otherwise his Union will
not be able to save him from dismissal unless there is a
great change in his attitude.
I recommend that the two week suspension is reduced to five
consecutive days and that the final warning stands as
imposed."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by the Union, in accordance with Section 36(2) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 1st May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of the 3 days' suspension imposed on him
in February, 1991, the worker suffered financial loss and
considerable stress and strain. It is the Union's
contention that the worker has been penalised enough and
that the two week suspension should therefore be completely
lifted.
2. Prior to his employment with the Council, the worker's
record shows him to have been a hard and reliable worker
who was highly thought of by his previous employers. The
worker denies the allegations made by the Council that he
was unco-operative or that his attitude to his work and to
his supervisors was unacceptable.
3. The Union feels that the original suspension and the
subsequent alleged incidents arose as a result of a lack of
communication between the parties. This led to
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of instructions
given on work to be carried out. As a resolution to this
problem the Union has suggested a radio link which would
enable instant contact to be made between the parties.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The failure of the worker to comply with the
reasonable instructions of his supervisor and his attitude
to his work in general, is totally unacceptable to the
Council. The incidents outlined to the Court clearly
indicate a deliberate policy of non co-operation on the
part of the worker.
4. 2. The Council, having consideration for the seriousness
of the situation, considered terminating the worker's
employment. However, as a result of representations from
the Union, it chose instead to impose a two week suspension
on the worker. On receipt of the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, the Council decreased the penalty to 5
days' suspension. The Council alleges that since the
Rights Commissioner's hearing, further incidents of non
co-operation have occurred. It feels that the five-day
suspension is a very lenient penalty and should stand.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the detailed submissions made by the
parties and is entirely satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of
the case. The Court therefore decides that the Recommendation
should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
3rd June, 1992
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman