Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93127 Case Number: AD9328 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TEAM AER LINGUS - and - IRISH AVIATION EXECUTIVE STAFF ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Association against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC300/92 concerning the disciplining of a worker.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having noted the Company's assurance that the
worker concerned has suffered no loss and that he is no longer at
any disadvantage as a result of incident at issue, does not
consider that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be
amended. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93127 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TEAM AER LINGUS
and
IRISH AVIATION EXECUTIVE STAFF ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Association against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC300/92 concerning the disciplining of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as Media Manager Promotions and Public
Relations up to 17th July, 1992 when he was removed from this
position by management because of alleged non performance of his
duties.
3. In June, 1992 the worker was assigned to represent Team Aer
Lingus at an International Video Festival in Biarritz. The
Company had a video entry which won an award. The Company became
aware of this through a third party. When the worker returned to
Ireland the Company held an investigation, following which, the
worker was removed from his position as Media Manager and after a
period on paid leave he was assigned to other duties.
4. The worker was dissatisfied with the disciplinary procedure
and its outcome. The Association referred the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 8th October and 3rd
December, 1992. He issued the following findings and
recommendation dated 6th January, 1993.
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:-
1. I uphold the action of the management in regarding the
failure of the worker to attend the presentation of the
awards as a quite serious matter.
This conclusion of mine has been largely influenced by the
fact that the worker attended the overall function on behalf
of Team Aer Lingus.
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate on the part of
management to have agreed with the worker that at the
commencement of the Company's investigations that he take
paid leave for four days".
"In the light of the above I must uphold the decision of the
Company and I therefore deem the claim by the claimant to
have failed".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
5. The Association 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 on
24th March, 1993.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The findings of the Company's appeal hearings under the
headings of Background and Conclusions should not be accepted.
They conflict with the worker's report which is supported by
the Company which made the video and who had a representative
at the Festival with the worker (details supplied to the
Court).
2. The disciplinary action taken by the Company is out of all
proportion to the perceived wrong doing on the part of the
worker.
3. The Company's action adversely affected the worker's good
name without just cause.
4. The Company did not follow its own laid down procedures
until forced to do so (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker's failure to carry out his duties resulted in a
loss of opportunity and serious embarrassment to the Company.
He had been fully briefed and was aware of his duties prior to
his departure to Biarritz.
2. The investigation and subsequent disciplinary procedures
were conducted within the parameters of agreed Company
procedures.
3. The Company has treated the worker fairly in view of the
seriousness of the matter and his service within the Company.
DECISION:
8. The Court, having noted the Company's assurance that the
worker concerned has suffered no loss and that he is no longer at
any disadvantage as a result of incident at issue, does not
consider that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be
amended. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
20th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.