Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92360 Case Number: AD92207 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HARP IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 153/92 concerning disciplinary action.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis on which it could uphold the Union's appeal against
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which should be implemented from the
date of the recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92360 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD20792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HARP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 153/92 concerning disciplinary action.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned, who is a senior brewery man and shop
steward was asked by his supervisor to do a physical stock check
while working on the 6a.m. to 2 p.m. shift on Saturday 22nd
February, 1992. The worker refused to carry out the instruction
on the grounds that he had not completed his own duties and was
unable to comply with the request. The issue was processed
through the Company/Union disciplinary procedures and the worker
was suspended for three days. The Union disputed the Company's
action and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 23rd May, 1992 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the suspension is lifted and that it is
replaced by a final written warning which has a currency to
the 21st February, 1993".
On the 15th June, 1992 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal in Dundalk on the 23rd September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The original stock check was to be undertaken by two
senior brewery men (the normal procedure) on Sunday 23rd
February. This was changed by Management to Saturday 22nd
February. One of the senior men was not afforded the
opportunity to work on the Saturday. The worker concerned had
agreed to work on the Saturday and understood that he would be
doing his normal work. When instructed to assist the other
senior man undertake the stock check, he explained to the
supervisor that his own work was not complete and that he was
unable to comply with this unreasonable instruction. When an
operator was instructed to assist the other senior man, the
worker concerned, as shop steward, merely pointed out that two
senior men always did the stock check.
2. Management, in suspending the worker concerned, acted in
an unjust fashion. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation
of a final warning is unfair and simply supports the Company's
position. The worker concerned was not aware that by
accepting Saturday work he would thereby deprive a colleague
(the other senior man) of the opportunity to work five hours
overtime. The Company in processing the issue through the
disciplinary process did not afford the worker fair and
reasonable consultation with his Union at all levels of the
process. The hurried series of meetings between Management
and Union representatives did not constitute proper stages in
the disciplinary/grievance procedures. The Union contends
that the worker has no disciplinary case to answer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned refused to carry out a lawful
instruction given to him by a supervisor. His action attempts
to undermine Management's authority. His refusal to work
under protest represents a further attempt to frustrate and
undermine existing procedures within the Company. Not only
did the worker refuse to work under protest, but he instructed
other union members not to carry out the stock check,
flagrantly disregarding Management's authority and frustrating
the grievance procedure.
2. The Company, in disciplining the worker, acted in a fair
and reasonable manner and its original decision to impose a
three day suspension was very lenient. In many companies the
worker's action would warrant dismissal. The Company showed
further goodwill by accepting the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and requests the Court to uphold the
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis on which it could uphold the Union's appeal against
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which should be implemented from the
date of the recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
5th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.