Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93394 Case Number: AD9364 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SWORDS LABORATORIES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC304/93 concerning disciplinary action against a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions oral and written of
the parties find no grounds to amend the findings of the Rights
Commissioner, and accordingly upholds it and rejects the appeal of
the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93394 DECISION: NO. AD6493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SWORDS LABORATORIES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC304/93 concerning disciplinary action against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company which is located in Swords in a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bristol-Myres Squibb Company of New York. The
Company is involved in the process development and
manufacturing of bulk fine chemicals for pharmaceutical use.
The worker concerned who commenced employment with the
Company in June, 1979, is employed as a chemical process
operator.
On the night shift on Wednesday 21st April, 1993, a batch of
chemical was wrongly processed. The personnel responsible
for the processing of the batch were the worker and a senior
chemical process operator who were supervised by a group
leader. The Company claims that the loss of the batch was a
considerable expense to the Company. An investigation into
the matter took place following which both workers were
suspended without pay for 3 months and advised that they
would be assigned to day work only when they returned to
work.
The union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner on
14th June, 1993 recommended as follows:
"In the light of the above I must uphold the decision of
the Company to treat this matter as a most serious
breach of good working practice. I would however
recommend some adjustments to the scale of the
penalties imposed. These are
(1) Suspension without pay to be for a period of one
month in each case.
(2) The relegation of both workers to day work only to
be reviewed by Management at the conclusion of six
months from its introduction.
(3) The demotion of the Senior Operator to Operator
level to be reviewed by Management at the
conclusion of twelve months from his return to
work.
The final written warning to stand in each instance."
Both workers were named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Union on behalf of the worker concerned to the Labour Court
on 5th July, 1993. The senior chemical operator accepted the
Right Commissioner's recommendation. The Court heard the
appeal on 22nd July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the worker's 14 years of employment with the Company
his supervisors had not made any complaints regarding
his work performance.
2. The worker concerned accepts that on the night in
question he was negligent and contributed to the loss of the
batch, but the punishment imposed by the Company is unfair.
3. Such a severe punishment has not been imposed by the
Company before. Given the worker's good record and the
lenient way his supervisors have been treated in relation to
the incident the severity of the punishment should be
reduced.
4. The worker is a married man with responsibilities and
the loss of his shift allowance of 25% alone is severe
punishment.
5. The final written warning means that any minor offence
in the future could result in dismissal.
6. In several similar incidents which occurred the Company
chose not to take disciplinary action against the workers
involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned admitted deviating from the log
sheet and had recognised a mistake early in the processing of
the batch.
2. In the period 21st April, 1993 to 19th May, 1993 the
worker persisted in distorting and denying the truth of what
happened on the night in question. If the mistake had been
reported it would have reduced the substantial losses
incurred by the Company as a result of the incident.
3. What the worker did following the initial mistake was
irresponsible.
4. Apart from the loss of materials deviation from the set
manufacturing formulae could lead to serious hazard and
destruction including loss of life by the mixing of
incompatible chemicals and by mixing in wrong quantities or
at wrong temperatures or pressures.
5. Because the products are for human ingestion, the
highest standards of quality assurances, quality control and
good manufacturing practice must be observed in all aspects
of the operation.
6. Because of the need to pay meticulous attention to
detail in manufacturing and the potential hazards arising
from errors or carelessness the Company has pursued a policy
of double manning in most of the manufacturing operation.
Where physically the work load is within the capability of
one operator two operators will normally be allocated. The
intention is that one operator will provide a check on the
work of the other and both are required to sign on the
manufacturing log sheet that each operation is performed
according to formula.
7. The appropriate action would be to dismiss the worker
concerned but having taken account of his long service and
family circumstances, the Company decided to opt for a
significant period of suspension.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the submissions oral and written of
the parties find no grounds to amend the findings of the Rights
Commissioner, and accordingly upholds it and rejects the appeal of
the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
17th August, 1993 ____________________________________
F.B./J.C.
Deputy Chairman.