Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92198 Case Number: LCR13657 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary action imposed by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having heard the oral and written submissions of the
parties finds that in all the circumstances and particularly in
view of the seriousness of the action of the worker concerned,
there are no grounds for reducing the disciplinary penalty imposed
by the Company.
Accordingly the Court rejects the claim of the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92198 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13657
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary action imposed by the Company
against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed as a works policeman with the Company
at its oil installation located at the Dublin Port and Dock's oil
terminal.
3. The facts of the matter are not disputed. The worker was
absent from his post for a period of time on the night of 29th
December, 1991. The Company subsequently investigated the matter
and imposed a four week suspension without pay to take effect from
10th February, 1992. The Union appealed that decision. On appeal
the suspension was confirmed and was to take effect from 6th
April, 1992.
4. The Union sought to have the suspension spread over a period
in order to minimise the hardship to the worker. (Subsequently
the Union sought to have the suspension reduced to one week). The
Company refused the Union's request and declined invitations to
attend either a Rights Commissioner's hearing or a conciliation
conference at the Labour Relations Commission. The Union referred
the issue to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 29th April, 1992. The Union agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker has long satisfactory service with the Company
and has no previous charges against him.
2. The Union concedes that the matter is serious but
considers the punishment to be severe. Had the suspension
been implemented prior to the 6th April, 1992 (the start of
the new tax year) he would have been entitled to a tax rebate
for the period of suspension. If the suspension is
implemented now it will impose extra hardship on the worker as
he would not now be entitled to a tax rebate.
3. In view of the worker's previous good record (which is not
in dispute) and the length of time taken to process the
dispute, the Court is asked to recommend a one week suspension
in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company views the worker's behaviour as a very serious
matter. He was assigned to a very sensitive area (details
supplied to the Court) which has to be manned 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
2. As he was aware of his responsibilities, the Company
considers that four weeks' suspension is the minimum
punishment which it can impose. Initially the Company
considered dismissal but in view of the worker's previous good
record and personal circumstances, it opted for a period of
suspension instead.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having heard the oral and written submissions of the
parties finds that in all the circumstances and particularly in
view of the seriousness of the action of the worker concerned,
there are no grounds for reducing the disciplinary penalty imposed
by the Company.
Accordingly the Court rejects the claim of the Union.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
25th May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.