Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92479 Case Number: AD92204 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. G.C. 39/92 concerning the two day suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view
that the worker concerned was unfairly treated. The Court
accordingly upholds the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92479 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD20492
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.
39/92 concerning the two day suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker is a general operative with the Corporation.
He is assigned to the section with responsibility for open
spaces. The worker was suspended for 2 days for refusing to
operate a "strimmer" when directed to do so by the
Corporation.
2. The suspension (with others) was the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's investigation on the 6th May, 1992. The
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. The worker refused to operate the strimmer because of
health and safety considerations (details supplied). He was
not engaged in industrial action. The worker put forward an
alternative method of cutting the grass which was not even
considered by the Corporation. The Corporation has an
obligation to ensure safe equipment is used and that safe
working practices are applied. In the absence of constant
supervision, the worker must be alert to his own safety and
act accordingly. Two other workers, who had been working in
the same area the day before the worker was assigned, refused
to use the strimmer for health and safety reasons.
2. The Union is certain that the Corporation misunderstood
the issue in this case and as a result the worker did not get
the reasoned hearing he should expect from his superiors
(details supplied). In the circumstances, the Union believes
the period of suspension to be unjustified.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 12th July, 1991, the Union lodged a claim to have the
special allowance for dirty work extended to workers who
operate strimmers. The claim was rejected and on 20th
September, the workers in the Corporation refused to operate
strimmers. Disciplinary action was avoided by the
intervention of the Labour Relations Commission. The workers
agreed to operate strimmers under protest while negotiations
were ongoing.
2. The Corporation cannot accept unilateral action taken by a
worker despite undertaking given by the Union on his behalf.
The Corporation has adhered to agreed procedures in this case
and is willing to accept the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view
that the worker concerned was unfairly treated. The Court
accordingly upholds the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
5th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.