Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93659 Case Number: AD9427 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SIFA LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 203/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. However, the
Court notes the Company statement that the incident involved in
this case will not militate against the claimant in regard to
application for future jobs. In view of the flexibility of
members on the fire-crew, the Company should review the
possibility of expanding the numbers on the claimant's shift.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93659 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2794
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SIFA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 203/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in Shannon in 1976 and is engaged
in the production of fine chemicals for pharmaceutical
formulations. In June 1990, a fire-drill and evacuation
exercise was organised at which two members of the fire-crew
failed to appear, having briefly absented themselves from the
site in order to go to the bank nearby. Following an
investigation into the workers' absence, one of them was
removed from his position of fire-crew member. (Members of
the fire-crew receive about 30 hours of training per annum
for which they are paid an ex-gratia sum of #280). The Union
raised the issue of the worker's removal from the fire-crew
on a number of occasions over the years and, subsequently,
the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 11th October, 1993,
the Rights Commissioner recommended that the worker "accepts
the Company's decision in the dispute and that the Company
gives him consideration when a vacancy occurs on the
fire-crew in the future". The Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court, on the
17th of November, 1993. The Court heard the appeal in
Limerick, on the 23rd of March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's colleague was also spoken to by the Safety
Officer but was not removed from his position on the
fire-crew. There is no reasonable justification for
discriminating against the worker who was removed.
2. The worker refutes the Company's statement that he did
not accept the seriousness of the matter. In his
conversation with the Safety Officer, he explained that
he had been given permission to leave the site. He was
not given an opportunity to explain that he fully
appreciated the seriousness of the matter. The worker
was an experienced member of the fire-crew, who took his
responsibilities very seriously.
3. The decision to remove the worker was made by the Safety
Officer during a heated discussion which allowed little
scope for objective analysis of the performance and
qualities demonstrated by the worker during his years as
a member of the fire-crew.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the function and prerogative of management to
appoint individuals to the fire-crew as part of its
obligations under the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work
Act, 1989. Accordingly, it is primarily a Health and
Safety matter rather than an industrial relations
matter.
2. Under Health and Safety legislation, an employer is
duty-bound to ensure the proper manning of the
fire-crew. There would be a legal liability on the
Company and individual managers for any negligence in
this regard. The worker's failure to attend a vital
exercise was unacceptable and irresponsible. When he
failed to acknowledge this (unlike his colleague), he
did not demonstrate sufficient awareness of his
responsibilities.
3. Individuals assigned special responsibility are expected
to comply with their role and co-operate as required.
That the worker failed to comply with the
responsibilities of his position, for which he is paid a
stipend, left the Company with no alternative but to
remove him.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. However, the
Court notes the Company statement that the incident involved in
this case will not militate against the claimant in regard to
application for future jobs. In view of the flexibility of
members on the fire-crew, the Company should review the
possibility of expanding the numbers on the claimant's shift.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th April, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./M.M. _______________
Chairman