Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92478 Case Number: AD92202 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. G.C.38/92 concerning the one day suspension of a driver.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and accordingly the Court upholds
the recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92478 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD20292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
G.C.38/92 concerning the one day suspension of a driver.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The driver is assigned to the work section dealing with
the maintenance of open spaces. He was suspended from work
for one day on 4th March, 1992 as a result of leaving his
place of work to take his tea-break in another location. The
worker had received previous warnings on 13th February, 16th
February and 19th February, 1992. On 20th February, the
driver was suspended for one day but this was lifted because
of an undertaking given by the driver and the senior shop
steward that he would take his tea-break at his day's work
location.
2. The Union contested the suspension on the basis that
facilities at the site were inadequate (details supplied) and
that the worker was making a protest on behalf of his
colleagues. The dispute with 3 other similar cases was
referred to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation as set out below issued on 10th July, 1992.
*"RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the suspension in all cases be reduced
by 50 per cent. I further recommend that the Union and
Waterford Corporation Personnel Department should agree
to review the existing code of practice on disciplinary
matters, with a view to ensuring that issues such as the
foregoing will be dealt with in a professional manner".
3. The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
Union by letter dated 22nd July, 1992. The Labour Court heard
the appeal in Waterford on 10th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is impractical for workers in the outdoor section of
the Corporation to return to their depots for tea-breaks.
On-site arrangements are usually in the form of a small
caravan for washing and eating. The condition of these
caravans has deteriorated and unfortunately many are not
usable.
2. The workers require adequate pre-meal washing facilities
and a small place to eat. The Corporation recently ordered
that meals would be eaten in lorries. The lorries are not
suitable as mobile canteens. The workers were determined to
resist this decision and on their behalf, the driver went to
the nearest depot for his break. He was duly suspended.
3. As a result there was a general stoppage of work and
following discussions the driver returned to work. The Union
accepts the financial constraints on the Corporation but
expect adequate facilities for workers to eat in safety. The
Rights Commissioner went some way to accepting this position.
The Union is seeking that the full period of suspension be
removed and that lost wages be restored to the worker.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under a 1979 agreement a mid morning tea break is
provided. Under the terms of the 1987 Eating on Site
Agreement the definition of meals to be eaten on site includes
tea breaks. An allowance is paid for this. In accordance
with the agreements the Corporation decides in what areas
meals are to be eaten on site. It is not a decision for the
individual worker.
2. The driver in this case absented himself from the site
without permission on a number of occasions and in accordance
with procedures was suspended for one day. This was
subsequently reduced by half by the Rights Commissioner. The
Corporation's action in the circumstances is reasonable and
fair. It is prepared to accept the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and accordingly the Court upholds
the recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
5th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.