Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94190 Case Number: AD9450 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BALLET INTERNATIONAL 2000 LIMITED - and - A WORKER;MANDATE |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW333/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,
the Court does not find grounds to justify alteration of the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation. Accordingly that
recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94190 APPEAL DECISION NO AD.5094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BALLET INTERNATIONAL 2000 LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
AND
A WORKER
(Represented by MANDATE)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW333/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures ladies' lingerie and is located
in Glasnevin, Dublin 11, employing 170 workers. The
dispute arose following the issuing of two warnings to a
worker on the 15th and 16th of September, 1993. The
warnings followed a confrontation between the worker and
her supervisor. The Union claimed that the warnings
were unwarranted and that the Company was procedurally
unfair in its treatment of the incidents in question.
The Company claims that, in the light of the worker's
conduct, it had no alternative but to discipline her.
The dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner on
the 25th of February, 1994. He recommended that the
warnings issued to the worker should be considered to
have lapsed and that a joint Union/Company meeting
should be held to discuss any procedural changes. The
recommendation was appealed by the Company on the 24th
of March, 1994. The appeal was heard by the Court on
the 15th of June, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The custom and practice in the Company is for all
employees to be totally flexible in their range of
duties. The worker's attitude and lack of co-operation
are not acceptable. On previous occasions she was only
prepared to carry out duties when threatened with
disciplinary action.
2. The manager of the Purchasing Department is responsible
for overall decision-making and the running of the
department. He is entitled to courtesy and
co-operation. If the worker had a problem she should
have processed it in a more constructive manner.
3. The two verbal warnings issued to the worker were
because of her repeated refusal to carry out
instructions from her supervisor. When pressed about
her lack of co-operation, she responded by raising her
voice or by walking out of the office.
4. The final written warning was issued for an act of
serious misconduct by the worker (details supplied to
the Court).
5. The issue of the warnings was postponed from the 15th of
September, until the 20th of September, when the Union
representative was available.
6. The Company must have the right to initiate its
established disciplinary procedure, when it deems it to
be necessary.
7. Given the worker's previous history of
unco-operativeness, the warnings were justified and
should not be withdrawn. There is also no requirement
to review the Company's disciplinary procedures.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both warnings issued to the worker have no expiry date.
If she had accepted the discipline imposed on her and
had the Company applied the normal six-month expiry
period, the warnings would have lapsed by now, the
matter presumably being laid to rest.
2. The Company's approach to the dispute was flawed in that
the manager who was aggrieved by the worker's behaviour
was allowed to deal with resulting disciplinary
measures.
3. The main reason for the problems that arose was the
manager's inability to perform his duties
satisfactorily, and his inability to cope with the
worker's refusal to be intimidated by him (details
supplied to the Court).
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,
the Court does not find grounds to justify alteration of the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation. Accordingly that
recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./D.T. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.