Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94315 Case Number: AD9466 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ACCO IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation ST39/94 concerning the imposition of disciplinary measures on thirteen employees following a dispute concerning the working of a new bagging machine.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions upholds the general
thrust of the recommendations of the Rights Commissioner. The
Court however, given the circumstances of the case, does not
consider the Company should benefit as a consequence of the
dispute. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that a sum
equivalent to the pay lost by the employees concerned be donated
to a charity agreed between the parties. It is the decision of
the Court that the Rights Commissoner's recommendaton be amended
accordingly.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94315 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ACCO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation ST39/94 concerning the imposition of
disciplinary measures on thirteen employees following a
dispute concerning the working of a new bagging machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Acco Ireland is the Irish branch of International
Business Controls BV which produces a broad range of
office supplies. It was set up in 1981 to produce
injection moulded and extruded products for the
world-wide market and employs approximately 130
employees.
2. Over the last four years there has been disagreement in
connection with the interpretation and implementation of
the 'working under protest' concept. This was finally
resolved by both parties accepting the Labour Relations
Commission proposals of the 11th March, 1994. A dispute
arose prior to this when the Company attempted to
introduce a new bagger machine on a 5-machine operation.
In January, 1993, it was agreed at local level that the
machine would operate under certain conditions for a
period of two weeks, during which time the output and
the various problems which might occur would be noted
and discussions would subsequently take place on the
appropriate manning levels.
3. The Company introduced the 5-machine operation and
maintained that the employees should operate the system
under the 'working under protest' principle until
agreement was reached. The workers refused to operate
the machine contending that the Company had breached its
local agreement. The Company suspended 13 workers. On
7th February, 1994 it was agreed at local level that the
5-machine system would operate with curtailed output
from the bagger and the question of the workers rights
to refuse to work under protest would be referred to a
Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on the 25th February, 1994 and
in his recommendation (ST39/94) issued on 15th April,
1994 recommended:-
"that the claim for payment fails. I also
recommend that the records of all involved should
be cleared of any reference to this episode and
that all disputed work should be worked under
protest in future."
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on 27th May, 1994.
The Court heard the appeal on 26th August, 1994 (the
earliest date agreeable with the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company in suspending the workers was at fault and
in breach of the local agreement and their letter of
July, 1993.
2. The workers exercised their rights and should not be
asked to suffer further by way of payment losses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a productivity agreement in place since 1990
under which the Company introduced the new bagger
system.
2. The Company attempted to resolve the dispute by having
the 5-machine system measured by an industrial engineer
and compared to the 4-machine system.
3. The employees refused to work the new 5-machine
operation pending the outcome of productivity studies.
4. In accordance with the Company's discipline procedure
and established custom and practice, the Company may
suspend employees without pay.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions upholds the general
thrust of the recommendations of the Rights Commissioner. The
Court however, given the circumstances of the case, does not
consider the Company should benefit as a consequence of the
dispute. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that a sum
equivalent to the pay lost by the employees concerned be donated
to a charity agreed between the parties. It is the decision of
the Court that the Rights Commissoner's recommendaton be amended
accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman