Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93283 Case Number: AD9340 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BALLYFREE FARMS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. DC 38/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93283 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BALLYFREE FARMS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. DC 38/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 7th January, 1993 the Company required six (6)
volunteers to work overtime from 5.30 to 8.30 p.m. Management
could not get enough workers to volunteer and in accordance with
the Company/Union agreement a rota system was put into operation.
The six workers concerned were rostered to work the overtime.
They failed to do so and following a disciplinary hearing at local
level the Company imposed suspensions without pay on the workers
ranging from three weeks to one week. The Union claimed that the
workers were unfairly treated and referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th
March, 1993 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:
"I am satisfied that the claimants breached their agreement
with the Company in relation to the operation of the
rota/list system for overtime working and that the Company
were, therefore justified in taking disciplinary action.
However, taking all the circumstances into account, I
consider the punishment imposed to be somewhat harsh and I
therefore recommend that the suspensions be reduced, as
follows:
Worker A from 2 weeks to 1 week
Worker B from 3 weeks to 8 days
Worker C from 1 week to 2 days
Worker D from 1 week to 2 days
Worker E from 1 week to 2 days
Worker F from 1 week to 2 days
I would also suggest that in order to avoid any ambiguity in
this area in future the overtime rota should be on display in
the factory premises at all times".
(The workers were named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 28th April, 1993 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 17th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Acceptance by the Union of the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation would mean that the workers concerned breached
the agreement by not working overtime on the 7th January. The
workers did not breach the agreement. Each worker gave
management a reasonable explanation as to why they were not
available for overtime (details supplied to the Court). The
workers concerned were committed to overtime working hence the
explanations which they offered were genuine.
2. The Company failed in its obligation under the agreement
to seek volunteers to replace the workers concerned. It also
failed to give the workers adequate notice in not posting the
list on the notice board until 4 p.m. on the 7th January. In
the rare instances of employees not working overtime in the
period 1991 to 1993, the problem of not posting the rota on
the notice board was identified as a contributing factor.
This is verified by the fact that in another area of the plant
where the rota is published and displayed, there have been no
problems.
3. The Union requests the Court to amend the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to provide for full
reimbursement of moneys lost by the workers and thereby remove
the suspensions from their records.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In July, 1991, agreement was reached with the Union that a
rota system would be introduced in order to accommodate the
need for overtime. This system worked well in 1991/1992. On
the 7th June, 1993, this procedure was adopted when Management
failed to get sufficient volunteers from the workforce. The
workers concerned were placed on the rota but failed to report
for overtime. The Company was put in a very difficult
position as an essential order had to be completed. In an
effort to do this Management was forced to work on a
production line to fulfil the order.
2. The workers offered their explanations to management the
following morning (8th January). They were advised that their
action could have caused the Company a serious loss of
business. The workforce was aware of the Company's situation
following the distruction of a sister Company by fire some
months previously and the possibility of increased business.
The Company could not tolerate the total indifference on the
part of these workers, and their breach of previously agreed
procedures relating to overtime. In the circumstances
Management's action in imposing the suspensions was
reasonable. The Company subsequently accepted and fully
implemented the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
20th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.