Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93324 Case Number: LCR14175 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: JOHN RONAN AND SONS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning accidents and absenteeism of three workers.
Recommendation:
In to-day's commercial environment if a Company is to be viable
and competitive and its employment is to be maintained and if
possible developed it is imperative that costs are kept to a
minimum. This applies particularly to such costs as Employers
Liability Insurance premia which, while providing safeguards for
the employees in the event of accidents, only serve to add to the
costs of the product or service of the enterprise.
If these costs are to be eliminated as far as possible then it is
incumbent on every employer to ensure as far as possible and as
reasonably practicable the safety, health and welfare at work of
all his/her employees; equally there is an obligation on employees
while at work to take reasonable care of their own safety health
and welfare and that of others who might be affected by their acts
or omissions.
To give effect to the above the Court would recommend that the
parties seek to agree procedures for dealing with issues which may
arise likely to cause increased insurance costs or loss of
entitlement to indemnity under the Company policy of insurance.
With regard to the employees in this dispute the Court, given all
of the circumstances of the case and in particular the lack of
agreed procedures for dealing with such issues, is not satisfied
that it was appropriate for the Company to categorise their
employees in the manner complained of.
In this context the Court notes that the restriction to 39 hours
per week has been lifted.
With respect to the issue of absenteeism the Court does not
consider the action taken by the employer was unreasonable.
The Court notes that the situation has improved in the time which
has elapsed since the imposition of the warnings.
The Court recommends that the Company and the Union seek to reach
agreement, as a matter of urgency, on a Comprehensive
Company/Union Agreement, such agreeement to include procedures for
the control of absenteeism.
In the interests of improving relations for the future and as a
gesture of goodwill the Court recommends that the Company, on the
implementation of the Comprehensive agreement referred to above
and subject to an acceptable attendance level being achieved in
the interim agree to the warnings being erased from the record of
the employees concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93324 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14175
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: JOHN RONAN AND SONS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning accidents and absenteeism of three
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is located in Clonmel, employs 170 people
and is involved in the processing of fresh hides for the
leather market, world-wide. In 1992, the Company had
difficulty obtaining employers liability insurance because of
the poor accident record, and as a result of a request from
the insurers to address the problem the three workers
concerned were identified as having the worst records. The
Company maintain that the three workers appear regularly on
accident records and submit insurance claims on a regular
basis. They have bad absenteeism records in addition to
absences due to accidents. The three workers have either
been suspended or given final warnings about their
absenteeism over a period of two years. The Company felt
that the warnings/suspension procedure did not achieve any
improvement in the situation and decided to reduce the men's
working week to 39 hours without overtime from August, 1992.
2. The Union objected to this move and requested that the
Company maintain the status quo pending a referral of the
dispute to the Labour Relations Commission. The Company
proceeded with the reduction in the working week for the
three workers and the matter was referred by the Union on
25th August, 1992 to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference took place on the 19th November, 1992
at which the Company agreed to review the position of the
workers in May, 1993. This was not acceptable to the Union
and the issue was referred by the Labour Relations Commission
to the Labour Court on the 21st May, 1993. The Court
investigated the matter on the 1st July, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is unfair and unjust in branding the workers
accident-prone.
2. The only fair way to assess the accident and absenteeism
situation would be to conduct a full analysis of the accident
book and absence records.
3. An analysis would show that the nature of the process
and work done is risk related.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The three workers have either been suspended or given
final warnings about their absenteeism over a period of two
years.
2. While going through the disciplinary procedure, their
attendance level did not improve and their accident levels
showed no noticeable improvement.
3. During the period in which the workers were on a 39-hour
week, their absenteeism and accident levels dropped.
4. The restriction to 39 hours a week has been lifted
following a review at the end of May, 1993 as promised at the
conciliation conference.
RECOMMENDATION:
In to-day's commercial environment if a Company is to be viable
and competitive and its employment is to be maintained and if
possible developed it is imperative that costs are kept to a
minimum. This applies particularly to such costs as Employers
Liability Insurance premia which, while providing safeguards for
the employees in the event of accidents, only serve to add to the
costs of the product or service of the enterprise.
If these costs are to be eliminated as far as possible then it is
incumbent on every employer to ensure as far as possible and as
reasonably practicable the safety, health and welfare at work of
all his/her employees; equally there is an obligation on employees
while at work to take reasonable care of their own safety health
and welfare and that of others who might be affected by their acts
or omissions.
To give effect to the above the Court would recommend that the
parties seek to agree procedures for dealing with issues which may
arise likely to cause increased insurance costs or loss of
entitlement to indemnity under the Company policy of insurance.
With regard to the employees in this dispute the Court, given all
of the circumstances of the case and in particular the lack of
agreed procedures for dealing with such issues, is not satisfied
that it was appropriate for the Company to categorise their
employees in the manner complained of.
In this context the Court notes that the restriction to 39 hours
per week has been lifted.
With respect to the issue of absenteeism the Court does not
consider the action taken by the employer was unreasonable.
The Court notes that the situation has improved in the time which
has elapsed since the imposition of the warnings.
The Court recommends that the Company and the Union seek to reach
agreement, as a matter of urgency, on a Comprehensive
Company/Union Agreement, such agreeement to include procedures for
the control of absenteeism.
In the interests of improving relations for the future and as a
gesture of goodwill the Court recommends that the Company, on the
implementation of the Comprehensive agreement referred to above
and subject to an acceptable attendance level being achieved in
the interim agree to the warnings being erased from the record of
the employees concerned.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd September, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./J.C. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.