Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93258 Case Number: AD9345 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FULFLEX LIMITED - and - (1)SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation S.T. 158/93.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties and the Rights Commissioner's
findings in this dispute.
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation was not unreasonable in the
circumstances and accordingly should be upheld.
The Court
therefore upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93258 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: FULFLEX LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation S.T.
158/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal is on behalf of a worker who has been employed
by the Company for 19 years in its Shipping Department. The
worker was demoted to the post of Grade 10 Shipping Operator
following a claim by the Company that he failed to fulfil various
obligations demanded by the position of Leadman. The Union claims
that the demotion was precipitated by a minor incident that was
greatly exaggerated by the Company.
The dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner on the 4th
of March, 1993.
The Rights Commissioner found that although the worker was
generally very committed to his work, he showed aversion to making
himself available for mid-week overtime if it did not suit him.
This behaviour was, according to the Rights Commissioner, not that
expected from a Leadman, who enjoys an additional #1,300 p.a. for
the extra responsibilities of Leadman. The Rights Commissioner
upheld the Company's position and recommended that the worker's
demotion stands. He further recommended that the worker receive
the sum of #500 without precedent or prejudice, to offset some of
the financial loss that he will incur as a result of his demotion.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Union, to the Labour Court on the 15th of April, 1993. The Court
investigated the appeal, in Limerick, on the 2nd of June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue central to the case was the late-arrival of the
worker at his post, on the 18th of December, 1992. The worker
clocked-in at 8.06 a.m., changed into his working-clothes and
presented himself for duty at 8.12 a.m. He was confronted by
his Department Manager in an unnecessarily heated manner over
his commencement-time. The Company has exaggerated the issue
greatly, as it is normal occurrence for workers to commence
their duties a few minutes late.
2. The worker is well capable of performing his role of
Leadman and is clearly the most suitable employee for the job.
3. The Company has alleged that the worker is inflexible
vis-a-vis overtime working. This is inaccurate and
unacceptable, as there is an agreed rota amongst the shipping
employees as regards overtime working.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has failed to live up to specific Leadman's
responsibilities, as explained to him in the Company's letter
of 11/5/92, i.e.,
He has failed to
(i) show good example with regard to punctual
attendance,
(ii) take initiatives in making the work station
operate efficiently, cleanly and safely,
(iii) be available on a reasonable basis for overtime,
(iv) inform management of any difficulties encountered
in the performance of duties.
2. The pattern of events which gave rise to the demotion of
the worker has continued since he was demoted.
3. The Company has attempted by means of repeated
counselling, to bring about improvement in the worker's
performance, without any sustained success.
DECISION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties and the Rights Commissioner's findings in this
dispute.
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation was not unreasonable in the circumstances and
accordingly should be upheld.
The Court therefore upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
11th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.