Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91672 Case Number: AD92142 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SEMPERIT (IRELAND) LTD - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST.365/91 concerning the removal of a worker from shift work, as a disciplinary measure.
Recommendation:
Having heard the submissions of both parties the Court is of the
view that being stood down from shift to day work while not
specifically provided for in the disciplinary procedure is not
in the circumstances an unfair disciplinary measure.
The removal from shift work for one month should be accepted by
both parties as the end of the matter and every effort should be
made by the Union and the Management and the two individuals to
restore normal working relations.
The Court takes the view that the recommendation in regard to
the claimant's losing his position as stand in for the
chargehand should not be proceeded with.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal in so far as it relates
to the chargehand position and upholds the R.C. recommendation
that the appellant be taken off shift work for 1 month.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91672 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD14292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SEMPERIT (Ireland) LTD
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST.365/91 concerning the removal of a worker
from shift work, as a disciplinary measure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker who is employed as a maintenance fitter has
worked on shift work for ten years. On 31st August, 1991 while
working on a particular machine the worker was approached by his
chargehand who requested him to perform a specific function on a
separate machine. The worker refused to comply with the request
and told the chargehand that, as he was already engaged on a
machine, the chargehand could do the job himself. As a result
of this refusal the shift manager wrote to the Engineering
Manager complaining about the worker's non co-operation with his
chargehand. The Engineering Manager met with both the worker
and the chargehand but an argument developed. The matter was
then referred to the Personnel Department. A meeting was held
in the Personnel Department on 10th September, 1991 at which the
worker concerned, his shop steward and the chargehand were in
attendance. A decision was taken at the meeting to remove the
worker from shiftwork with effect from that date.
The Union claims that, in removing the worker from shift work as
a disciplinary measure, the Company did not conform with the
disciplinary procedure as set out in Clause 15 of the agreed
Comprehensive Procedural Agreement (copy supplied to the Court).
The Company contends that all shift chargehands are reluctant to
have the worker as a fitter on their shift because of his lack
of commitment and co-operation. The only option is to put the
worker on day work.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's
hearing took place on 11th October, 1991 and the following
recommendation issued on 18th November, 1991
"Recommendation
In order that the claimant is given every opportunity to
improve I recommend that he is placed on daily duties at
ordinary rate for one month. The period should allow the
atmosphere to improve before his resumption on shift-work.
I further recommend that he loses his position a stand-in
for the chargehand and that he receives a written warning
in accordance with the Agreement".
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 17th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company in its decision to remove the worker from
shift work is in clear breach of its policy under the
Company/Comprehensive Agreement. The Agreement should take
precedence over difficulties which the Company perceives to
have with individual workers.
2. On the 31st August the worker was engaged in work on a
machine to which he was formally assigned and for which he
had been issued with an official breakdown request form.
The request by the chargehand to perform a function on
another machine was not accompanied with a written
breakdown request form and was therefore inconsistent with
the Company's own stated policy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since June, 1990 the worker has on several occasions
refused to carry out instructions from his chargehand. On
these occasions the worker was informed that if he
continued to ignore instructions the Company would have to
consider taking him off shift work.
2. In order for the Company to operate successfully and
efficiently it is necessary for workers to be committed to
their jobs and to be willing to cooperate at all times,
especially when a breakdown occurs. Due to the worker's
reluctance to cooperate and to the ill-will which now
exists between the worker and his chargehand other shift
chargehands are not prepared to have him as a shift fitter.
This situation means that the only appropriate work left
for the worker is day work.
DECISION:
Having heard the submissions of both parties the Court is of the
view that being stood down from shift to day work while not
specifically provided for in the disciplinary procedure is not
in the circumstances an unfair disciplinary measure.
The removal from shift work for one month should be accepted by
both parties as the end of the matter and every effort should be
made by the Union and the Management and the two individuals to
restore normal working relations.
The Court takes the view that the recommendation in regard to
the claimant's losing his position as stand in for the
chargehand should not be proceeded with.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal in so far as it relates
to the chargehand position and upholds the R.C. recommendation
that the appellant be taken off shift work for 1 month.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
10th March, 1992
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman