Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94394 Case Number: LCR14611 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LIMERICK CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by Corporation against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST48/94 concerning disciplinary action taken against a traffic warden.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Corporation did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances. The Court accordingly upholds the appeal and so
decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94394 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14611
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LIMERICK CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Corporation against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST48/94 concerning disciplinary action
taken against a traffic warden.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 7th January, 1994, a traffic warden was suspended
from duty without pay by his line manager following his
refusal to put a ticket on a van which was parked on the
footpath in a clearway zone. The warden had refused
claiming that the clearway restrictions were finished
and that the van was not parked on a footpath.
2. The worker resumed duty on 8th January pending a meeting
with his Union and the Personnel Officer. This meeting
took place on 10th January and the Personnel officer
confirmed at the meeting that the warden would not be
paid for the period of suspension (2.25 hours) and that
he would be issued with a first warning regarding his
failure to carry out instructions.
3. On 19th January, the Union appealed the disciplinary
action to the City Manager who rejected the appeal. The
dispute was then referred to the Rights Commissioners
Service and an investigation took place on 16th June,
1994. The Recommendation (ST48/94) as follows was
signed on 14th July, 1994.
"I recommend in the interests of good industrial
relations that the warning is scrubbed from the
claimant's record and that the suspension is changed
from without pay to with pay as suggested in (3)
above".
4. On 27th July, 1994 the Recommendation was appealed to
the Labour Court by the Corporation under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court
heard the appeal in Limerick on 3rd November, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The disciplinary action imposed relates to a refusal by
the warden to carry out his lawful duty (details
supplied). The warden's terms and conditions of
employment are set out in his contract of employment
which clearly states that he will be required to perform
his duties in accordance with the established work
practices of the Corporation.
2. The warden had no discretion in relation to the parking
of the van. He permitted the van to park contrary to
the law and his terms of employment. He refused to undo
this wrong when specifically requested to do so. The
law, the warden's terms of employment and the
Corporation's specific instructions must take precedence
over private agreements.
3. The Rights Commissioner erred in his findings and took
into consideration matters which were erroneous in
themselves and irrelevant to the disciplinary issue,
i.e. the refusal of the warden to deal with a vehicle
parked on a footpath. Accordingly, the Commissioner's
Recommendation that the disciplinary action be changed
to suspension with pay was unsoundly based.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's actions on 7th January, 1994 were within
the limits of the discretionary powers conferred upon
him by the Corporation (details supplied). This was
recognised by the Rights Commissioner who made an
exhaustive investigation into the dispute.
2. The Rights Commissioner also recognised that wardens
cannot be viewed as some kind of general operative
because of their statutory functions under the law. The
wardens do their duty to the best of their ability. If
any warden carries out his duties in a wrongful manner,
he will answer for it in a court of law.
3. The Union recognises that wardens must take instructions
from their superiors. The instructions must be proper.
In this case the warden was exercising his discretion
and his superior had no powers to issue a ticket. It is
unfair for a worker to be suspended without pay and not
given an opportunity to explain his actions. The
supervisor's actions were in breach of the 1991 Payment
of Wages Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Corporation did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances. The Court accordingly upholds the appeal and so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.