Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93643 Case Number: LCR14413 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Disciplinary procedures.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court notes
that there was no specific arrangement regarding time or location
for the tea-break. The accepted practice was to have the break
where, as far as possible, it did not interfere with the
time-table or on-going work.
The claimant was advised by his inspector after the first
occurrence that the break at Foynes was contrary to normal and
accepted practice and that his action was delaying the discharge
of the train. It was open to the claimant to accept, under
protest, the instruction not to take the break at Foynes and to
raise the matter through the appropriate grievance procedure.
However, he chose to continue the practice for a week. In the
circumstances and having regard to the fact that the issue was
subsequently processed through the internal company disciplinary
procedure, the Court recommends that the penalty should stand.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93643 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14413
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH RAIL
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disciplinary procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one train-driver who operates out of the
Limerick Depot. The Company alleges that "by insisting on
taking a 20-minute meal break", the driver caused "delay to
the discharge of the Barytes train at Foynes, between the 7th
and 11th of September, 1992 (inclusive)".
Following an internal investigation into the matter, the
driver was suspended for one day without pay. The Union
claims that the driver took his break in accordance with the
"Conditions of Service for Drivers" (which allows for meal-
breaks as opportunities arise) and that, in any case, the
train was not delayed. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 11th of November, 1993, in accordance
with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on the 23rd
of March, 1994, the earliest date convenient to both
parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was no delay to the running of the train. Nor was
there delay caused to any person who might have required
the goods which were unloaded by a contractor and
stacked on the docks. When the driver indicated to the
contractor that he wished to take a 20-minute break, the
contractor did not object.
2. It has been suggested that the driver could have taken
his break while shunting in Foynes. As a driver is
required to drive the leading cab of his locomotive, he
would have to change cabs with every change of
direction. It would, therefore, be dangerous to take
his tea-break while shunting.
3. In his letter of 23rd of September, 1993, concerning the
appeal hearing, the Regional Manager indicated that he
spoke to the depot person at Foynes. He did not speak
to the J.C.B. driver who is alleged to have made the
complaint about the train driver. It is unreasonable
that, in investigating the alleged complaint, the source
was not questioned by management.
4. The train driver was entitled to have his tea-break when
he did. His roster does not make allowance for
tea-breaks. He took his breaks at the most opportune
time, ensuring that there was no delay caused to the
running of the operation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The locomotive driver unnecessarily delayed the
discharge of the Barytes train on the dates in question
despite having been spoken to by the Inspector. In so
doing the driver departed from (A) the agreed
arrangements for trainmen in relation to meal breaks and
(B) the normal arrangements which operate in connection
with the Barytes traffic.
2. The contractor did object to being delayed for 20
minutes and registered his complaint with the senior
depot person.
3. The driver has been dealt with fully in accordance with
the disciplinary procedures agreed with the trade
unions. He participated fully in the application of the
agreed disciplinary machinery and the application of
this machinery was proper and fair.
4. The Company would stress the importance of ensuring that
the integrity of agreed disciplinary machinery should
not be impugned and that variations in its application
should not be introduced. By definition this must
include the totality of the procedures including their
outcome.
5. The Labour Court, in previous Recommendations, has
supported this principle and upheld the Company's
position (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court notes
that there was no specific arrangement regarding time or location
for the tea-break. The accepted practice was to have the break
where, as far as possible, it did not interfere with the
time-table or on-going work.
The claimant was advised by his inspector after the first
occurrence that the break at Foynes was contrary to normal and
accepted practice and that his action was delaying the discharge
of the train. It was open to the claimant to accept, under
protest, the instruction not to take the break at Foynes and to
raise the matter through the appropriate grievance procedure.
However, he chose to continue the practice for a week. In the
circumstances and having regard to the fact that the issue was
subsequently processed through the internal company disciplinary
procedure, the Court recommends that the penalty should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd April, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./M.M. ----------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.