Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94107 Case Number: AD9439 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WOOD INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights' Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC466/93 concerning disciplinary action taken against a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court has
concluded that the Company did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances.
Accordingly the Court does not find grounds to alter the findings
of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
In the opinion of the Court the final written warning in this case
should have a definite life span and recommends that it apply for
a period of one year.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94107 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WOOD INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights' Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC466/93 concerning disciplinary action taken against a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In November, 1993, the worker took 3 days' leave to
travel abroad. He had applied for the leave as 3
floating days, 10 days in advance. The foreman informed
the worker that he had used up all his holidays and that
he had only one floating day left to take.
2. The worker claims that the foreman gave him permission
to take the other 2 days off and he did so. On his
return to work, he was suspended for 3 days and asked to
sign a final written warning. The worker refused and
the dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners'
service for investigation and recommendation.
3. A Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 13th
December, 1993, and the Recommendation as follows was
issued on 6th January, 1994.
" In the light of the above I must uphold the action
of the Management and I recommend that the claim by
the claimant must fail."
4. By letter of 10th February, 1994, the Union appealed
against the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Labour Court heard the appeal in Carlow on 29th
March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker approached the management for 3 days leave to
go to Scotland. He discovered that he had only one
floating day left to take. He had his ticket booked and
made a special plea to the foreman. He understood the
foreman to say "if he had to take them to take them".
2. The worker feels that the Company's action in this case
is unfair and an over-reaction to the situation. The
worker has a doctor's certificate to cover his first
day's absence. He is unwilling to accept the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was only given permission to take one day off
as this was his entitlement. The worker could not have
misunderstood the direction of the foreman (details
supplied to the Court). The Company's position was
vindicated by the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
which it is willing to accept.
2. The worker was suspended on 2 previous occasions. His
time-keeping has also brought him to the attention of
the Company (details supplied to the Court). The
Company has been more than tolerant with this worker in
the past and in the present circumstances, it must
proceed with its disciplinary action.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court has
concluded that the Company did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances.
Accordingly the Court does not find grounds to alter the findings
of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
In the opinion of the Court the final written warning in this case
should have a definite life span and recommends that it apply for
a period of one year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman