Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92196 Case Number: LCR13670 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Disciplinary action taken by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not find grounds to alter the penalty imposed by the Company
but recommends that the claimant be given the option of taking up
any appropriate vacancy that may arise nearer his home location.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92196 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13670
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
Parties: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disciplinary action taken by the Company against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a
signalperson at Wellington Bridge station. On Monday 11th
November, 1991 the worker concerned with the assistance of an
employee of a client Company, using a mechanical loading shovel,
engaged in an irregular shunting movement involving unladen beet
wagons. The Company claims that the incident was an extremely
serious one with significant safety implications. On 22nd
November, 1991, the worker was formally charged in relation to the
incident. At a disciplinary hearing held on 3rd December, 1991,
the worker was found guilty of the offence and he was demoted to
depotperson and transferred to Rosslare. An appeal hearing upheld
the decision and the worker was informed by letter on 30th
January, 1992. On 3rd February, 1992 he was transferred to
Rosslare. The Union claims that it was unnecessary to impose such
severe penalties in order to get the Company's point across. No
agreement could be reached at local level and the Union referred
the matter to the Labour Court for investigation under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court
hearing on 6th May, 1992, the Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is not the Union's policy to defend deliberate
breaches of safety regulations. The Union is satisfied that
once the dangers of using the loading shovel were brought to
the worker's attention, he acknowledged his error and that
under no circumstances could his actions be repeated.
3. 2. The severity of the penalties imposed are harsh and
extreme. They involve the worker travelling an extra 500
miles per week, which in petrol costs is a crippling blow.
3. Supervisory personnel are under pressure to maintain
schedules and their attitude is that they do not care how the
work is done. The worker could have waited until a locomotive
engine was provided but in the interest of maintaining work
schedules, he decided not to wait.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. In accordance with normal practice an unladen beet train
comes to Wellington Bridge on Saturday evening. The
locomotive releases the unladen wagons into a siding and
engages in shunting movements necessary to place the unladen
wagons for loading in the beet siding on the following Monday
morning. On Saturday the 9th November, 1991, the unladens
wagons were not placed for loading before the locomotive
departed.
2. The worker concerned was the signalperson on duty on
Saturday 9th November, 1991 and retained responsibility for
ensuring that shunting movements were carried out as per
requirements and in accordance with safety operations as
provided for in the Company's rule book.
3. The worker's action were highly irregular. He put his
own safety and the safety of other employees at risk. There
was also a danger regarding possible damage to the railway
gauge, signal wires and track points. Damage to any one of
these items would create significant hazards for trains, both
freight and passenger, using the line.
4. The worker was dealt with in accordance with the agreed
disciplinary machinery and submissions made on his behalf at
both the disciplinary hearing and the appeal hearing were
taken into account. The Company must emphasise its statutory
and moral responsibility for public and staff safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not find grounds to alter the penalty imposed by the Company
but recommends that the claimant be given the option of taking up
any appropriate vacancy that may arise nearer his home location.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Kevin Heffernan
4th June, 1992 ----------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.