Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93671 Case Number: AD9421 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST301/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions.
The Court takes the view that the period of suspension should be
reduced to six days, and the Recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93671 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST301/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the suspension without pay for 12 days
of a worker and his redeployment to other duties.
The worker concerned absented himself without permission from
his workplace on 25th May, 1993. The worker arranged with
his wife to make an appointment with their G.P. (regarding
their child's condition, who needs special care). Shortly
before 5.00 p.m. on 25th May, 1993 the worker's wife called
for him at his workplace and he left with her, without the
permission of his supervisor.
The worker was on leave from work for the following 2 days.
On 27th May, 1993 he received a letter from the Company's
Administrator, stating that he should not return to work
without first seeing the Administrator. A meeting took place
on 27th May, 1993 and the worker was told that he was being
suspended from work while the case of his absence was being
investigated. The worker was notified by letter on 4th June,
1993 that he was suspended from his work.
The Union, on behalf of the worker concerned, met with the
management on two occasions but the dispute was not resolved.
The worker was suspended from work for 12 days, returning to
work on 22nd June 1993, when he was redeployed to alternative
work.
The Union referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioners'
Service and an investigation took place on 23rd September,
1993.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation issued as follows:
On the substantive issue I have to find that the
claimant broke regulations, admittedly under duress, but
that and his previous record justified the actions taken
by the Board. I regret that I am unable to take any
other view despite the well presented case made by the
Union delegates. I have considered recommending a
hardship payment to the claimant but I cannot see how it
is warranted given the recent award against his employer
which he established in Law.
At the hearing, the Company referred to a number of previous
disciplinary incidents involving the worker concerned. The
Union states that it had been agreed with the Company that
the Rights Commissioner's investigation would only deal with
the incident on 25th May, 1993.
The recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour
Court on 30th November, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 22nd February, 1994 in Athlone (the earliest date
suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, at a meeting with the Union prior to the
Rights Commissioner's hearing, confirmed that it would
confine its case regarding the worker to the events of 25th
May, 1993. However, at the Rights Commissioner's hearing,
the Company mentioned a number of previous disciplinary
incidents regarding the worker, some of them as far back as
1976. The Company also spoke to the Rights Commissioner
after the hearing, regarding the worker's recent award
against the Company. This was done without the Union's
knowledge. These 2 events had a major bearing on the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
2. The incident of 25th May, 1993 was a minor infringement,
involving the worker concerned being absent from his work
place for half an hour. The worker was worried about his
child, who needed special care. The worker was unaware of
the time of the appointment with the G.P. until his wife
called for him at 5.00 p.m.. He admits that he neglected to
tell his supervisor that he was leaving, but he did mention
it to two other workers.
3. The worker was suspended for 12 days, at a loss of #38
per day. He was assigned to alternative work which resulted
in a loss in working conditions, particularly in the area of
public holiday entitlement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker concerned had been involved in a number of
disciplinary incidents and was suspended for a time in 1981.
He received a number of warnings and his performance at work
was generally unsatisfactory.
2. The worker gave conflicting versions of the incident of
25th May, 1993. At a meeting with his Supervisor on 28th
May, 1993 the worker stated that his wife rang him at 3.00
p.m. on 25th May, 1993 to confirm an appointment with their
G.P. for 5.00 p.m. on that day. At a later meeting, between
Union representatives and the Company, the worker stated that
he was unaware of the time of the appointment until his wife
called for him shortly before 5.00 p.m.
3. The worker states that he told two other workers that he
would be leaving work early on 25th May, 1993 to keep the
appointment with the G.P. Both workers deny that he said
anything to them. He also neglected to ask his Supervisor
for permission to leave early.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions.
The Court takes the view that the period of suspension should be
reduced to six days, and the Recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th March, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O'N/A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman