Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93539 Case Number: AD9395 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HARTMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 157/93 concerning the suspension of two workers.
Recommendation:
5. The written and oral submissions of the parties were
considered by the Court.
The Court is not satisfied from the evidence submitted at the
hearing that a "well established and acknowledged practice" exists
in the company whereby a disputed instruction is carried out under
protest pending a resolution of the matter.
The Court also notes that on the night of February 19th the
Production Manager acknowledged that a misunderstanding had taken
place.
While the Court does not accept that the above points in any way
excuse the actions of the men concerned, it considers the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended to allow for a
reduction in the penalty to a half day's unpaid suspension.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93539 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HARTMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 157/93 concerning the suspension of two
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 19th February, 1993, the two workers were on shift
work in the injection moulding department. Normally, a four
person shift operated but because of a significant increase in
work an agreement was made for a fifth person to be part of
the shift. A dispute arose when the shift leader attempted to
withdraw the fifth person from the area. The production
manger and the shop steward intervened and it was agreed that
the workers would continue working their shift and the matter
would be dealt with later. On the 22nd February, 1993, the
two workers received letters from the Company, to attend at
the factory. They were suspended for one day without pay
because of their involvement in the incident on the 19th
February, 1993.
2. The Union referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner
and a hearing was held on the 24th August, 1993. The Rights
Commissioner in his recommendation, issued on the 3rd
September, 1993, recommended:-
"that the penalty imposed by the employer on the
workers should stand".
(The workers were named in the recommendation).
3. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 15th September,
1993. The Court heard the appeal on the 3rd November, 1993 in
Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were carrying out their normal work and
operating an existing agreement i.e. a fifth person operating
on a shift. The Company attempted to unilaterally withdraw
the fifth person and picked the two workers to impose the
change on. Disciplining two workers in such circumstances is
totally wrong.
2. All other shifts operated with the fifth person. The
Company was attempting to force through a change by having the
two workers on one shift accept the withdrawal of the fifth
person.
3. The situation was badly handled by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The suspension of the workers was justified in view of
the unreasonable refusal of the workers to carry out a
reasonable instruction.
2. If a dispute arises on night shift, it is custom and
practice that work is carried out under protest.
3. The Company will not accept a blatant refusal to do work
from any employee.
4. Major disruption was caused by having to call in the
production manager and the shop steward at night.
DECISION:
5. The written and oral submissions of the parties were
considered by the Court.
The Court is not satisfied from the evidence submitted at the
hearing that a "well established and acknowledged practice" exists
in the company whereby a disputed instruction is carried out under
protest pending a resolution of the matter.
The Court also notes that on the night of February 19th the
Production Manager acknowledged that a misunderstanding had taken
place.
While the Court does not accept that the above points in any way
excuse the actions of the men concerned, it considers the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended to allow for a
reduction in the penalty to a half day's unpaid suspension.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
24th November, 1993. ------------
P.O'C/U.S. Depty Chairperson