Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9450 Case Number: AD9430 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE BOARD - and - AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST448/93 concerning disciplinary action against a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the worker involved in this issue
decided to ignore a legitimate instruction when he absented
himself from work to attend a meeting in Dublin. The agenda of
the meeting could constitute an argument for either side to
justify the appropriateness or otherwise of the worker's
attendance. However, it could not justify the action of the
worker in ignoring a direct decision of management. In the
circumstances the Court upholds the Board's appeal but considers
that the warning should be removed from the file after 12 months.
There seems to be a need for formal arrangements between the Board
at central level and the Union, concerning attendance at meetings
in Dublin and the procedure for ensuring the release of Union
representatives when appropriate. The parties should address this
issue.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
UNION
Worker: Mr. Walsh
Body:
CD9450 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE BOARD
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation ST448/93 concerning disciplinary action against a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 6th January, 1993, the Union met with the management
of the Blood Transfusion Service Board in the I.B.E.C. offices
in Dublin. The worker, who is a shop steward in Cork,
notified his supervisor that this meeting was taking place
concerning the implementation of new technology and that his
attendance was required. The Company ascertained that the
meeting related to a disciplinary matter in Dublin and on this
basis refused the worker permission to attend the meeting.
The worker decided to attend the meeting and left a letter to
that effect for his supervisor. On 8th January, 1993, a
disciplinary meeting was held following which the worker was
issued with a verbal warning which was later confirmed in
writing to himself and the Union.
2. The matter was referred by the Union to the Rights
Commissioner and a hearing was held on 14th December, 1993.
The Rights Commissioner in his Recommendation S.T. 448/93
issued on 12th January, 1994, recommended:-
"that the warning is withdrawn".
The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court on 20th January, 1994. The Court heard
the appeal on 13th April, 1994 in Cork.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had two days during which he or his Union
could have raised the grievance with management through normal
procedures but he chose not to do so.
2. The worker disobeyed a direct instruction not to attend
the meeting in Dublin. The Company acted reasonably by
issuing a verbal warning.
3. The Company must have the right to discipline employees
where they disregard management instructions.
4. The Union's disregard for normal grievance procedures
cannot be used as an excuse to protect the worker's actions.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company acted unreasonably in withholding permission
to attend a Union/Management meeting. Leave to attend
meetings of this nature is an established procedure and
accords fully with the rules of good industrial relations
practice.
DECISION:
5. The Court considers that the worker involved in this issue
decided to ignore a legitimate instruction when he absented
himself from work to attend a meeting in Dublin. The agenda of
the meeting could constitute an argument for either side to
justify the appropriateness or otherwise of the worker's
attendance. However, it could not justify the action of the
worker in ignoring a direct decision of management. In the
circumstances the Court upholds the Board's appeal but considers
that the warning should be removed from the file after 12 months.
There seems to be a need for formal arrangements between the Board
at central level and the Union, concerning attendance at meetings
in Dublin and the procedure for ensuring the release of Union
representatives when appropriate. The parties should address this
issue.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th April, 1994 ---------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman