Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93642 Case Number: AD946 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: G.E. SUPERABRASIVES IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 366/93 concerning the suspension without pay of four workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, much
of which was conflicting, the Court, on the balance of
probability, is of the view
- that the workers in question were asleep
- that Mr Stanley played a greater part in
determining the penalty than was procedurally
correct in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly the Court considers that a suspension of the workers
is justified but that it should be limited to one shift.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93642 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: G.E. SUPERABRASIVES IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 366/93 concerning the suspension without
pay of four workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. G.E. Superabrasives Ireland is a manufacturer of
superabrasives products, used in cutting, grinding and
drilling. The Dublin plant was established in 1981 and
employs 400 people.
2. On the morning of the 1st October, 1993, four employees
were finishing the 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. shift. It is a
requirement of the Company that staff in the department in
question cease production thirty minutes before the end of
their shift and present the material on which they were
working, to the accountability department. The remaining time
is spent washing-up and in relaxation. On this morning the
workers had submitted their work and were relaxing at their
place of work with their eyes closed.
3. At approximately 7.40 a.m. the operations manager
observed the men relaxing with their eyes closed. He
approached the workers and observed them for 30 seconds. A
meeting followed between the four workers and the manager and
later that day the workers received letters stating that they
were suspended with pay, pending an investigation for their
sleeping on duty. A disciplinary meeting was held on 5th
October, 1993, and a decision was made that the workers would
receive a three shift suspension.
4. The Union referred the matter to the Rights
Commissioner and a hearing was held on the 19th October, 1993.
The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation No. BC366/93
issued on 28th October, 1993 recommended:-
"In the light of the above I must hold that it would be
unsafe for me to other than recommend that the
suspensions be withdrawn".
The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court on the 11th November, 1993. The Court
investigated the matter on 17th January, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The existence of a practice within the plant whereby
employees have up to a half an hour between handing up their
work and the end of shift is irrelevant to deciding whether it
is reasonable to conclude that the workers were asleep on
duty.
2. The past records of the employees is not an indicator as
to whether they would be likely to be asleep on that
particular morning.
3. The operations manager, after noticing that the workers
looked to be asleep, approached them and observed them for
thirty seconds.
4. The unions contention that they were not asleep but
fully alert with their eyes closed and motionless is
contradicted by the evidence.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers were not asleep, they were relaxing with
their eyes closed and were fully alert.
2. The manager observed the workers for 30 seconds before
they responded to him and it is an insufficient basis on which
to conclude they were asleep.
3. At the investigation it was accepted by the Company that
the workers were entitled to relax during the time in which
the incident occurred.
4. The workers, when challenged by the Manager were
immediately responsive and coherent.
5. The workers have a good record and have a total of 28
years service in the Company.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, much
of which was conflicting, the Court, on the balance of
probability, is of the view
- that the workers in question were asleep
- that Mr Stanley played a greater part in
determining the penalty than was procedurally
correct in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly the Court considers that a suspension of the workers
is justified but that it should be limited to one shift.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
3rd February, 1994 ---------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman