Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93428 Case Number: AD9369 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation S.T. 294/93.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having heard all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, is critical of
the manner in which the procedures were used by the Company at the
initial stages of this dispute.
The Court, however, agrees with the thrust of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly upholds it and
rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93428 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
TRADING AS QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation S.T.
294/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal is on behalf of a worker who had been employed as
Provisions Chargehand in the Company's Naas branch, until his
transfer to the Company's Tallaght branch, in the capacity of
sales assistant. His transfer arose following an incident when
the worker 'signed-in' goods without properly checking them for
weight and quantity. The goods delivered were later found to be
short in retail value by #1,500 - #2,000. The worker's transfer
resulted in loss of rate for him and also additional travel
expenses. He was to remain on the full Naas Assistants' rate for
the first 12 months of service in Tallaght and he would then be
paid the full Tallaght rate. On the 15th of June, 1993, the
dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner who found that
the worker had been the subject of a fraudulent exercise by the
van-driver who delivered the goods. He recommended that the
worker
"accepts the transfer to Tallaght under existing Agreements
and that he receives the full local rate applicable for the
post after a probationary period of one month from his date
of commencement. Unfortunately he must also forfeit his
charge hand's differential and I so recommend".
The Union has appealed the Recommendation on the grounds that the
penalties suffered by the worker were too severe. The Company's
position is that the worker was guilty of serious breach of the
Company's goods-inwards procedures, which warranted dismissal, but
instead he was transferred to the Tallaght Branch.
The appeal was investigated by the Labour Court on the 19th of
August, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The multi-tiered punishment imposed on the worker and
upheld for the most part by the Rights Commissioner is
unjustified. As a chargehand in Naas, working two nights per
week, his gross weekly earnings would amount to approximately
#264.00. As sales assistant in the Tallaght branch, working
one late night per week, his weekly earnings would amount to
approximately only #233.00
2. The worker has to endure further financial loss arising
from increased travel costs resulting from the required extra
150 miles travel per week. When he was employed in the Naas
branch the worker was in a position to share transport costs
with his wife who also works in Naas. Although the worker has
occasionally worked in Dublin branches in the past, he has
since married and settled in Carbury, Co. Kildare.
3. No formal training had been given to him regarding his
position of Chargehand either prior to his appointment or
subsequently, until the time of his transfer to Tallaght.
When he was sent to Tallaght, he believed it was so that he
could be trained-in in the Company's procedures.
4. The worker's mistake concerning the delivery in question
arose due to pressure of work on him. He decided to pay more
attention to the customers than to the van man. This was
understandable given the importance the Company puts on
customer-service. He chose the wrong option under pressure,
from the best of motives. The level of punishment is out of
proportion with the mistake he made.
5. When the worker met with Management to discuss the
shortfall in the 'signed-in' goods, it was not made clear to
him that the meeting was a full disciplinary hearing. For
that reason he was represented by a colleague rather than a
Union shop steward.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As Provisions Department Chargehand in Naas, the worker
was in a position of trust and responsibility and it was
essential that the Company should be able to have complete
confidence in him. By his actions he destroyed Management's
trust and confidence in him.
2. The worker's failure to follow correct procedures resulted
in a loss of #1,500 - #2,000 (Retail) in the Provisions
Department in Naas. The Company would have been justified in
dismissing him but taking account of Union representation,
decided to impose a penalty less than dismissal. The penalty
was more than reasonable in the circumstances.
3. The Company wishes to refute the worker's statement that
he had not been trained in checking-in procedures. All staff
who join the Company are given full induction training.
4. It is inconceivable that a person in his position would
not realise the importance of personally checking the stock
delivered against the delivery docket, before signing it,
rather than taking the delivery man's word for the contents of
the delivery.
5. Management acted reasonably in response to the points
raised by the Union regarding the terms of the worker's
transfer i.e. regarding his rate of pay and location.
6. Management conducted a fair and thorough investigation
into the incident before deciding on what disciplinary action
to take. The worker was invited to chose a staff
representative to attend the investigation and he chose to
have a colleague from the meat counter as his representative.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having heard all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, is critical of
the manner in which the procedures were used by the Company at the
initial stages of this dispute.
The Court, however, agrees with the thrust of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly upholds it and
rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
6th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.