Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92685 Case Number: AD9325 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: THE WHEELAN BOOT MANUFACTURING COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners recommendation No. CW213/92 concerning the issue of written warnings to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the matters raised by the parties at
the appeal. It appears to the Court that the fundamental matter
at issue is the question of responsibility for quality. On this
issue the Court wishes to emphasise that each employee has a
responsibility to ensure the proper standard of quality of the
product which passes through his hands.
With this in mind in the circumstances of this case it would seem
to the Court that it is not clear that the responsibility for the
fault could not in the first instance be decisively laid at the
door of the worker concerned. The Court therefore decides that
the first written warning be withdrawn but that the second should
stand and the position of the worker within the desciplinary
procedure should be amended accordingly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92685 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: THE WHEELAN BOOT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
recommendation No. CW213/92 concerning the issue of written
warnings to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which employs approximately 54 workers, is based
in Cootehill, Co. Cavan and manufactures shoes.
3. The worker concerned has been employed by the Company since
1986 and has held several jobs in the assembly track area prior to
taking up his present duties on side and seat lasting. This
involves the attachment of shoe uppers to the soles. The worker
operates two machines.
4. On the 21st May, 1992, thirty-two half pairs of shoes were
found to be damaged. The Company carried out an investigation
after which the worker was issued with a written warning. On 28th
May, 1992 twenty-four pairs of shoes were damaged and a further
written warning was issued to the worker. The worker rejected the
Company's contention that he was responsible for the damage and
the Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioners
investigation took place on 22nd October, 1992 and on 30th
October, 1992 the following findings and recommendation issued.
"I am obviously not an expert in the operations involved in
shoe making. However the Company demonstrated enough for me
to appreciate the gravity with which it views the incidents
in question. I accept that the worker is not being singled
out for special treatment. I do not consider that the
procedures adopted by the Company were defective, and I
accept that it conducted a reasonable investigation before
imposing the discipline. Despite being aware of developments
in September I believe that the Company acted correctly in
this instance.
I recommend that the Union accepts the Company decision in
this dispute".
5. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal in Cavan on 16th
March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker considers that there is undue pressure being
brought to bear on him since he won a claim for unfair
dismissal in 1990.
2. The worker acknowledges that there was damage to the shoes
and that they should not have been damaged. However, as the
quality control system is variable it cannot be proved that
the worker was responsible for the damage (details supplied to
the Court).
3. The shoes had passed through a number of operatives before
the damage was noticed.
4. The Company has refused to consider the possibility that
the damage could have been caused by another operation.
5. There is no conclusive proof that the damage to the shoes
was caused by the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Each worker has a responsibility to ensure that goods of
an acceptable quality are produced. This is explicitly stated
in the terms of the bonus scheme.
2. The worker has considerable experience in the job and is
well aware of quality requirements. His work fell below these
standards in May, 1992. The Company considered the
explanations put forward by the worker to be unacceptable.
3. The Company carried out an investigation and is satisfied
that the damage occurred at the worker's machines (details
supplied to the Court).
4. The Company has acted fairly and reasonably in this case.
The Rights Commissioners recommendation endorses the Company's
action.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the matters raised by the parties at
the appeal. It appears to the Court that the fundamental matter
at issue is the question of responsibility for quality. On this
issue the Court wishes to emphasise that each employee has a
responsibility to ensure the proper standard of quality of the
product which passes through his hands.
With this in mind in the circumstances of this case it would seem
to the Court that it is not clear that the responsibility for the
fault could not in the first instance be decisively laid at the
door of the worker concerned. The Court therefore decides that
the first written warning be withdrawn but that the second should
stand and the position of the worker within the desciplinary
procedure should be amended accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
15th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.