Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92193 Case Number: AD92161 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH CEMENT - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 2/92 concerning disciplinary action taken against a worker employed at its Platin Plant.
Recommendation:
10. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, together with the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court would say that in normal circumstances and in accordance
with Company/Union Agreements where a worker is given a legitimate
instruction by management the instruction should be carried out if
necessary under protest and recourse made to the procedures.
In this case, however, the Court has taken into account that an
earlier dispute existed, that an interim agreement was in place
pending the outcome of negotiations and that the management
personality involved in that dispute issued the instruction which
gave rise to the dispute before the Court.
The Company, in the view of the Court, was fully aware of the
emotive nature of the earlier dispute and had been fully appraised
of the implications of introducing the person concerned into the
management chain while the original dispute (which included the
person concerned giving instructions to the assistant foremen) had
not been resolved.
In all the circumstances it appears to the Court that the outcome
of such an approach was likely to be confrontational.
In the interests of resolving the dispute, of maintaining and
developing harmonious relations the issue required to be handled
with sensitivity.
Whilst not condoning in any way the refusal of employees to carry
out the legitimate instructions of management the Court considers
that in the circumstances of this case the employee concerned
should be paid such sums as were lost to him during his period of
suspension (such sums to be exclusive of any overtime claimed).
The Rights Commissioners recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92193 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD16192
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 2/92 concerning disciplinary action taken
against a worker employed at its Platin Plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1991 a dispute arose over the filling of a vacancy
for mechanical maintenance superintendent at the Platin Plant.
The Company appointed a mechanical engineer to this position. The
Unions objected on the grounds that this position was a
promotional outlet for assistant mechanical foremen. It was
agreed between the parties that the position would remain vacant
until procedures had been exhausted (known as the Sligo
Agreement).
3. In May, 1991 the mechanical engineer, who had been appointed
to the position, was transferred on a temporary basis, for six
months to another Company within the group. Negotiations took
place and the matter was investigated by the Labour Court
Recommendation (LCR13578 refers).
4. In December, 1991 the mechanical engineer returned to the
Platin Plant. The assistant mechanical foremen informed the works
engineer that they would not be co-operating with the mechanical
engineer concerned as he was central to the dispute.
5. On 11th December, 1991 the mechanical engineer issued an
instruction to an assistant mechanical foreman. The assistant
mechanical foreman refused to carry out the instruction and was
suspended without pay from 13th December, 1991 to 3rd January,
1992.
6. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held at which it was agreed to refer
the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute
on 6th March, 1992 and issued the following findings dated 25th
March, 1992:
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by each party I have
come to the following conclusions.
1. It is undeniable that the worker refused to carry out
instructions given to him by the mechanical engineer.
2. Normally this would be an end to the matter and I would
not have any sympathy for an employee who fails to carry
out legitimate instructions from a lawful Supervisor.
3. However the matter is a good deal more complex than this
insofar as the filling of the mechanical supervisor's
position at Platin works was a matter in dispute between
the parties and has been the subject of an investigation
by the Labour Court.
4. Given the fact that following an interim agreement which
arose out of a conciliation conference in Sligo in May,
1991 it was agreed as an interim measure that the
mechanical engineer would be withdrawn from the position
and discussions/negotiations would be held between the
parties, it was somewhat insensitive on the part of the
Management to have placed him in December, 1991 back in
the Platin works as a mechanical engineer when the matter
had not yet been finally resolved.
5. All of the mechanical foremen on the 6th December
informed Management that they wouldn't be taking any
instructions from the mechanical engineer. Without the
overriding issue having been settled Management proceeded
to require the worker carry out instructions by the
mechanical engineer",
and he also recommended:
"In the light of the above and in order to allow a more
positive atmosphere to be restored at Platin works, I
recommend that as an act and gesture of goodwill the Company
should restore to the worker all sums lost by him during the
period of his suspension. The overall issue I understand
will be a matter for a Labour Court Recommendation and I feel
I should leave it at that".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
7. The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 29th April, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. All the assistant foremen had been informed that the
mechanical engineer was returning to Platin at that grade and
would be carrying out duties appropriate to that grade. They
were informed that the position of mechanical maintenance
supervisor would remain vacant as per the Sligo agreement.
2. The worker refused to carry out a legitimate instruction
and to avail of the disciplinary procedure. The Company
cannot have a situation where a supervisor can decide who he
will accept an instruction from and whether or not he will
participate in the Company disciplinary process. To accept
such a situation is a recipe for anarchy as it involves a
management group who should be leading by example.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company was aware that the mechanical engineer was
central to the ongoing dispute and was informed that the
assistant foremen would have nothing to do with him until the
matter was resolved. The Rights Commissioner recognised this
and recommended accordingly. In the circumstances the Court
is asked to uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
10. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, together with the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court would say that in normal circumstances and in accordance
with Company/Union Agreements where a worker is given a legitimate
instruction by management the instruction should be carried out if
necessary under protest and recourse made to the procedures.
In this case, however, the Court has taken into account that an
earlier dispute existed, that an interim agreement was in place
pending the outcome of negotiations and that the management
personality involved in that dispute issued the instruction which
gave rise to the dispute before the Court.
The Company, in the view of the Court, was fully aware of the
emotive nature of the earlier dispute and had been fully appraised
of the implications of introducing the person concerned into the
management chain while the original dispute (which included the
person concerned giving instructions to the assistant foremen) had
not been resolved.
In all the circumstances it appears to the Court that the outcome
of such an approach was likely to be confrontational.
In the interests of resolving the dispute, of maintaining and
developing harmonious relations the issue required to be handled
with sensitivity.
Whilst not condoning in any way the refusal of employees to carry
out the legitimate instructions of management the Court considers
that in the circumstances of this case the employee concerned
should be paid such sums as were lost to him during his period of
suspension (such sums to be exclusive of any overtime claimed).
The Rights Commissioners recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
27th May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.