Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93247 Case Number: LCR14060 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning the disciplinary action taken by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties in this case which in effect is an appeal against a
decision taken by the Company on two incidents following
application of agreed disciplinary procedure. The Court takes the
view that it is beyond its terms of reference on this occasion to
comment on the procedure itself except to say that in this
instance the complaint by the Union of undue delay is not easily
sustainable in the light of the accounts of events given at the
hearing.
As regards the particular incidents which led to the worker
becoming involved in the disciplinary procedure, much has been
made, based on the Stationmasters report, on the distinction
between a request and an instruction. The Court itself is not
satisfied that such a distinction is valid insofar as it would
seem that yet another refusal by the group to go to Limerick
Junction would have led to immediate suspension without pay. No
organisation can work properly when its members fulfil their role
only under threat. The offence in this case was the refusal by
the group collectively and singularly to go to Limerick Junction.
As regards the second incident which occurred some six weeks later
which was dealt with jointly with the incident above, the only
rational explanation for the worker's behaviour seems to be that
he was being deliberately obtuse in his manner of carrying out his
instructions.
It is the view of the Court that such behaviour on the part of an
employee of such long standing is unacceptable and against this
background the Court takes a serious view of his leaving the cash
unattended irrespective of the period involved.
Taken in conjunction, as the two offences were in fact dealt with,
the two incidents would appear to demonstrate a degree of non
co-operation that warranted a severe penalty.
The Court however is not altogether sure that the proposed
transfer is entirely appropriate and recommends that the penalty
be amended to a period of suspension for six days, this to be
placed on the workers record for 1 year during which it may be
construed as a "final warning" as regards his behaviour.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93247 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14060
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the disciplinary action taken by the
Company against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a depotperson at Heuston
Station.
3. The Company initiated disciplinary proceedings against three
depotpersons arising from an incident on 11th November, 1992. On
that morning four workers (including the worker here concerned)
were asked, in turn, by two different inspectors, to travel to
Limerick Junction to act as guard on the Cork/Heuston Guinness
train, whose locomotive had broken down. Initially the four
workers refused to go. The stationmaster then informed them that
unless one of them went to Limerick Junction they would all be
suspended from work for that day. Subsequently two workers
volunteered and one was sent to Limerick Junction. (The worker
concerned in this dispute was not one of the volunteers).
4. The Company also initiated disciplinary proceedings against
the worker arising from an incident which occurred on 20th
December, 1992. The Company charged the worker with gross
negligence in the performance of his duties, in that he failed to
secure properly the Board's revenue by leaving it unattended in
the inspector's office and, that he refused to carry out the
instruction of his supervisor by not placing car-park receipts and
keys in a drop safe.
5. One worker was cautioned and the other two were dismissed.
The first worker accepted his penalty and the other two workers
lodged an appeal. Appeal hearings were held on 25th March, 1993
following which one worker received a 3 day suspension plus a
warning and the worker concerned was penalised by being
transferred to Cabra Cement Depot for a probationary period of six
months and was issued with a warning.
6. Subsequently the Union advised the Company that it was in
dispute regarding the deplorable state of staff relations,
industrial relations and the abuse of the disciplinary procedure
at Heuston Station. Industrial action commenced on 6th April,
1993. Both parties were invited to discussions at the Labour
Relations Commission on 8th April, 1993. Normal working was
restored on the basis of a proposal by the Commission that the
disciplinary case would be referred, by the Union, to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and that the worker would be
placed on a training course at Inchicore pending the outcome of
the Court's investigation.
7. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st April, 1993. The
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
issued its recommendation by letter on 29th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Initially the workers declined a request to go to Limerick
Junction. When the stationmaster issued them with an
instruction the workers complied and the matter was resolved.
2. The worker refused to go to Limerick Junction as there was
no guarantee that he would finish work at his normal finishing
time. He had personal commitments to attend to on that day
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company was inconsistent in that the penalties handed
out varied considerably.
4. There was an undue delay in processing the matter through
the disciplinary procedures (details supplied to the Court).
5. There is a conflict of evidence regarding the incident
relating to the second charge (details supplied to the Court).
The worker denied the charge and even if guilty, such charges
would normally result in a caution.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The worker was dealt with fully in accordance with agreed
disciplinary procedures.
2. Application of these procedures was fair and proper.
3. The disciplinary procedures have stood the test of time
and have been endorsed by the Court on numerous occasions.
4. Industrial action or the threat of industrial action in
the context of matters being processed through procedures is
unacceptable.
5. Delay in processing the procedures arose due to the
initial refusal of the worker to accept the charge sheet and
the subsequent postponement of hearings at the request of the
Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties in this case which in effect is an appeal against a
decision taken by the Company on two incidents following
application of agreed disciplinary procedure. The Court takes the
view that it is beyond its terms of reference on this occasion to
comment on the procedure itself except to say that in this
instance the complaint by the Union of undue delay is not easily
sustainable in the light of the accounts of events given at the
hearing.
As regards the particular incidents which led to the worker
becoming involved in the disciplinary procedure, much has been
made, based on the Stationmasters report, on the distinction
between a request and an instruction. The Court itself is not
satisfied that such a distinction is valid insofar as it would
seem that yet another refusal by the group to go to Limerick
Junction would have led to immediate suspension without pay. No
organisation can work properly when its members fulfil their role
only under threat. The offence in this case was the refusal by
the group collectively and singularly to go to Limerick Junction.
As regards the second incident which occurred some six weeks later
which was dealt with jointly with the incident above, the only
rational explanation for the worker's behaviour seems to be that
he was being deliberately obtuse in his manner of carrying out his
instructions.
It is the view of the Court that such behaviour on the part of an
employee of such long standing is unacceptable and against this
background the Court takes a serious view of his leaving the cash
unattended irrespective of the period involved.
Taken in conjunction, as the two offences were in fact dealt with,
the two incidents would appear to demonstrate a degree of non
co-operation that warranted a severe penalty.
The Court however is not altogether sure that the proposed
transfer is entirely appropriate and recommends that the penalty
be amended to a period of suspension for six days, this to be
placed on the workers record for 1 year during which it may be
construed as a "final warning" as regards his behaviour.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________
7th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.