Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94181 Case Number: LCR14436 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary action against a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers the warning issued to the worker in this
case was appropriate. The Court, therefore, recommends that it
stand but that it be removed from the record after nine months.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94181 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14436
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary action against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker is employed as a fitter in the Company
Engineering Workshops based in Inchicore and has been with the
Company since 14th July, 1969. On 8th October, 1993, the
worker was requested by his supervisor to attend a training
course at 8.15 a.m. on Monday, 11th October, 1993 in the works
training centre. The worker stated that he wished to seek the
views of his trade union before attending this course as he
was concerned about its relevance and the long-term
implications for himself. On 11th October, 1993, the worker
reported for work and was approached by his supervisor seeking
an explanation as to why he was not at the training course.
The worker stated that he was not refusing to attend the
course but that he still needed to clarify the situation. At
this point the supervisor took him off the clock from the
official starting time of the course which was 8.15 a.m.
2. The worker contacted his Union and was advised to attend
the course. The supervisor put him back on the clock from
10.10 a.m. and the worker attended the course. On 27th
October, 1993, the Company invoked the terms of the agreed
Company/Trade Union disciplinary procedure against the worker
for his failure to attend the training course on the 11th
October, 1993 as instructed by his supervisor. The Union
contend that management indicated on the 11th October, 1993
that the worker's eventual attendance at the training course
was the end of the matter and no further action would be
taken. The Company refute this, saying that no such
indication was given and the worker was subsequently issued
with a warning on 20th December, 1993. On 15th March, 1994,
the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court investigated the matter on the 25th April, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The General Manager in conversation with the Union
Official on 11th October, 1993, indicated that the worker's
eventual attendance at the training course would be the end of
the matter.
2. This issue could not arise again as a new
grievance/disciplinary procedure now exists.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The General Manager did not give an undertaking that the
worker's attendance at the training course would be the end of
the matter.
2. The Company are satisfied that the case was dealt with
in a proper manner as per the shopworkers' disciplinary
procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers the warning issued to the worker in this
case was appropriate. The Court, therefore, recommends that it
stand but that it be removed from the record after nine months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
9th May, 1994 ---------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.