Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93114 Case Number: LCR13974 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that it be accepted that the dismissal of
the driver concerned was not unfair, in the light of the
fact that he had been given every opportunity available
under the well established disciplinary procedures.
In consideration
however of the fact that he had very belatedly worked
the new rosters during the period of his notice of
dismissal the Union on his behalf might consider
asking the Company to re-open the ad misericordiam
appeal of November, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________ 15th March, 1993.
Deputy Chairman F.B./J.
C.
Note
Enquiries
concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.
CLARIFICATION OF 4TH.MAY 1993
The Court has fully
considered the issues raised by the parties at the
clarification hearing. Given all of the circumstances
addressed in the case of the dismissal of the
employee the Court in L.C.R. 13974 confirmed that the
Company in the use of the disciplinary machinery had
not treated the employee concerned unfairly. The
Court upholds this view.
However the Court in
the second paragraph of its recommendation and for the
reason stated required the Union to seek a further "ad
misericordiam" hearing.
It was
the view of the Court that given the actions of the
employee albeit belatedly, his service with the
Company and his domestic circumstances and with a view
to resolving the issue, the experienced industrial
relations practitioners, in the interests of improving
the industrial relations climate, would have been able
to devise a formula acceptable to both parties.
In all the existing circumstances
the Court would urge the parties to review their
respective positions on all of the issues
involved.
The Union should arrange for normal working to be resumed in
accordance with management instructions and for
meaningful discussions in accordance with agreed
procedures to take place regarding any outstanding
issues. The Company for their part and given the time
which has elapsed since the dismissal should agree to re-
engage the employee concerned from an agreed date and on
conditions appropriate to the Company.
The Court calls on
the parties to accept this letter as a basis for a
resolution of the issues between them.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93114 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13974
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with Bus Eireann as
a driver on 16th June, 1980. In February, 1992, the Company
received an instruction from the Department of Transport to
eliminate seven days continuous working in respect of its drivers
as the first step towards full adherence to the driving hours
regulations. The Company informed the Union that, in order to
comply with the Department's instruction, it would introduce new
rosters with effect from 12th April, 1992.
The new rosters were introduced with effect from 12th April, 1992
(the new rosters are the subject of a separate Labour Court
hearing). The worker concerned refused to work the new rosters
but he reported for work in accordance with his old rosters.
The worker concerned was dismissed with effect from 9th October,
1992, for failing to report for work in accordance with his new
roster. Prior to his dismissal the worker was employed at the
Company's Sligo Depot. Local level discussions failed to resolve
the issue and, on 17th December, 1992, the Union served strike
notice on the Company to take effect from 4th January, 1993.
At the invitation of the Labour Relations Commission a
conciliation conference was held on 7th January, 1992. At
conciliation the Company's position was that it did not deal with
dismissals other than through the Unfair Dismissals Act and it was
not prepared to depart from this practice.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court hearing
took place on 18th February, 1993. Prior to the Court hearing the
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court
issued its Recommendation by letter on 23rd February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dismissal of the worker concerned resulted from the
Company's insistence in introducing new rosters without
consultation and agreement to cover the reduction from 7 to 6
day working.
2. The Company was in no doubt that the introduction of the
new rosters were in dispute. It received no applications from
the drivers when the new Sunday duties were advertised.
3. The Company's contention that this is a one-man dispute is
not acceptable to the Union.
4. The Union were at all times prepared to enter into
discussions in an effort to reach agreement on the new
rosters.
5. The Company were in breach of normal procedures. It
should conform to the norms that apply generally to changes of
this nature and reach agreement with the Unions.
6. The worker concerned was unfairly treated. He has given
12 years good service to the Company.
7. The Company's action is too severe. It shows little
regard for the welfare of the worker or his family.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The facts leading to the dismissal of the worker concerned
are as follows:
(a) the worker failed to report for duty as rostered on
twelve occasions;
(b) the worker failed to meet with the District Manager as
instructed on seven occasions;
(c) the worker "walked-out" of meetings with the District
Manager on two occasions;
(d) five letters sent to the worker by the District Manager
were returned unopened;
(e) two periods of suspension were imposed on the worker and
final warnings were issued;
(f) the worker made an "Ad Misericordiam" appeal to the
Regional Manager, Galway. The worker failed to appear at
the hearing;
(g) a further "Ad Misericordiam" appeal was arranged for 5th
November, 1992. This appeal was disallowed.
2. The dismissal of the worker concerned was dealt with
through the disciplinary procedures agreed with the Unions in
respect of road passenger operative grades. It is recognised
that these procedures are fair and they are self contained.
The outcome of cases processed though these procedures, are
not referred to third parties.
3. The Company has at all times accepted the result of cases
processed through the disciplinary procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that it be accepted that the dismissal of
the driver concerned was not unfair, in the light of the fact that
he had been given every opportunity available under the well
established disciplinary procedures.
In consideration however of the fact that he had very belatedly
worked the new rosters during the period of his notice of
dismissal the Union on his behalf might consider asking the
Company to re-open the ad misericordiam appeal of November, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
15th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.
CLARIFICATION OF 4TH.MAY 1993
The Court has fully considered the issues raised by the parties at
the clarification hearing. Given all of the circumstances
addressed in the case of the dismissal of the employee the Court
in L.C.R. 13974 confirmed that the Company in the use of the
disciplinary machinery had not treated the employee concerned
unfairly. The Court upholds this view.
However the Court in the second paragraph of its recommendation
and for the reason stated required the Union to seek a further "ad
misericordiam" hearing.
It was the view of the Court that given the actions of the
employee albeit belatedly, his service with the Company and his
domestic circumstances and with a view to resolving the issue, the
experienced industrial relations practitioners, in the interests
of improving the industrial relations climate, would have been
able to devise a formula acceptable to both parties.
In all the existing circumstances the Court would urge the parties
to review their respective positions on all of the issues
involved.
The Union should arrange for normal working to be resumed in
accordance with management instructions and for meaningful
discussions in accordance with agreed procedures to take place
regarding any outstanding issues. The Company for their part and
given the time which has elapsed since the dismissal should agree
to re-engage the employee concerned from an agreed date and on
conditions appropriate to the Company.
The Court calls on the parties to accept this letter as a basis
for a resolution of the issues between them.
~