Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94354 Case Number: AD9481 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COILLTE TEORANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC64/94.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the recommendations of the Rights
Commissioner, given the circumstances of the case, were not
unreasonable.
The Court notes the Company accepts that the final warnings are
clearly related to this specific type of issue.
Further it is the view of the Court that there should be a finite
period to the warnings on the record in this case and this should
be for two years.
This the Court decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94354 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COILLTE TEORANTA
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC64/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns eight workers who are based at
Glenealy Forest, Co. Wicklow. During the period of 6th
December, 1993 to 31st January, 1994 a 9.9 hectare
section of the forest was planted. Completed records
returned by the workers concerned indicated that a total
of 30,200 plants were planted. This was confirmed
following a count of the empty bags returned to the
depot and determined the amount of bonus which would be
paid to the workers concerned.
The forest manager subsequently carried out a check and
found that there was a discrepancy between the number of
plants returned as having been planted by the group and
the actual quantity planted. Following an on-site
investigation Management discovered a substantial number
of plants dumped in an adjacent site, others were not
recovered. The Company conducted an investigation into
the discrepancies and following interviews with each of
the workers, Management decided to impose a week's
suspension together with a final written warning on the
workers concerned. The Union claimed that the workers
were unfairly treated.
2. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 10th June,
1994 the rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"I believed that the Employer was faced with a clear
dilemma. On the one hand there was manifest evidence
of serious irregularities and careful and detailed
investigation by the Employer had brought with it a
conviction that the responsibility for these
irregularities lay among the eight persons involved.
On the other hand there was no actual proof that any
specific individual was responsible. Should the
Employer have done nothing about the matter then this
could be regarded as an almost acquiescence to the
irregularities. The Employer took action by
suspending each of the eight men for a period of one
week and issuing each with a written warning. It was
certainly open to the responsible party(ies) to have
come forward and acknowledge the responsibility.
Certainly in the light of the categoric assurance
given by Coillte that such an admission would not
place the job of the person in jeopardy it was
disappointing that there were no takers for this
course of action.
In the light of the above my recommendation is that I
must uphold the action by the Employer especially in
the context of all the circumstances surrounding the
case. I recommend accordingly".
On the 27th June, 1994 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on the 24th October, 1994
(the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the workers
concerned were responsible for the irregularities which
Management claims occurred.
2. There was considerable negligence by Management in
delivering a substantial number of extra plants to the
site when in fact the planting programme had nearly
ended. These extra plants were left out overnight and
at the weekend. Other Coillte workers were in the area
and the site is adjacent to main roads and easily
accessible to outsiders.
3. Coillte has no procedure for the checking and signing
for the delivery of plants to the site or of checking
and signing for the issue of plants to individual
workers. The forest manager is the only person who
would have known that more plants than the amount
required for the site were delivered.
4. There is no agreed procedure for the taking of
disciplinary action in relation to employees of Coillte
Teo. In the absence of such procedure the Company can
only suspend workers if it continues to pay them.
5. The Union requests the Court to overturn the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation, re-imburse the workers
with pay for the week's suspension and remove the final
written warning from their files. The Union is also
seeking compensation for the upset and damage caused to
the good names of the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company carried out a thorough investigation and
ruled out any realistic possibility of external
involvement. The Company is convinced that
responsibility for the irregularities lay among the
eight workers concerned. The workers were afforded the
opportunity to come forward and admit responsibility for
the incident, and advised that such an admission would
not place the job of the person in jeopardy.
Notwithstanding this assurance no worker made an
admission of guilt.
2. The Rights Commissioner was satisfied that the
Company's action was fully justified following a full
and detailed investigation of the matter. Management
was faced with a dilemma whereby on the one hand there
was manifest evidence of serious irregularities, the
responsibility for which was shown by the investigation
to lie among the eight particular workers. On the other
hand there was no specific proof that any particular
individual was responsible. Yet had management taken no
action it could be regarded as almost acquiescence to
the irregularities.
3. The Company acted at all times in a reasonable manner
and had full regard to the principles of natural
justice. The possibility that some of the workers
concerned were wholly innocent in terms of either their
direct involvement in or their knowledge of the incident
was fully taken into account in deciding on the action
which was ultimately applied.
4. The Company requests the Court to uphold the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court finds that the recommendations of the Rights
Commissioner, given the circumstances of the case, were not
unreasonable.
The Court notes the Company accepts that the final warnings are
clearly related to this specific type of issue.
Further it is the view of the Court that there should be a finite
period to the warnings on the record in this case and this should
be for two years.
This the Court decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.