Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95392 Case Number: AD9560 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - MANDATE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW136/95.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that the
employee was guilty of misconduct.
However, the Court also finds that the Company failed to deal with
the actions of misconduct in accordance with their own
Disciplinary Procedures.
Accordingly the Court finds that the employee was unfairly treated
and should be reinstated to his position of chargehand in Upper
Baggot Street and that his period of suspension without pay should
be transferred into paid suspension. He should be issued with a
written warning with regard to the incident which should apply in
accordance with the provisions of the Company Disciplinary
Procedures.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95392 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW136/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
1983 and was employed as a chargehand in the fruit and
vegetable department at the Company's Upper Baggot Street
Branch for approximately six years. On Monday the 27th
February, 1995 the worker, together with a number of other
employees, attended a meeting in the office of the area
manager. During the course of the meeting the worker concerned and the are
manager had a heated conversation following which the worker
was suspended. The Company subsequently decided to demote
and transfer the worker to another branch. His pay was "red
circled". The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly
treated. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th June, 1995
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts the transfer to
Kilbarrack with immediate effect subject to the red
circling of his rate of pay. I also recommend that all
periods of suspension without pay since last February
are translated into paid suspension, and that the worker
is afforded the opportunity to transfer to other stores
if he wishes after 6 months in the normal procedure and
that his disciplinary record is considered clear after
the same period".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On the 3rd July, 1995 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on the 19th July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that the worker's comments to the area
manager were unwarranted. The comments of the worker to
his superior while unmannerly did not warrant the harsh
discipline imposed by the Company which also included
suspension without pay at different times.
2. The worker concerned has a very good record in the
employment and on two occasions in 1995 received awards
from the Company for sales of particular items in his
department. Yet he was demoted and transferred without
an investigation, without representation or even a
discussion taking place.
3. There is a very poor industrial relations climate at the
Baggot Street branch and a number of incidents have
occurred in recent years which have given serious
concern to the Union. (Details supplied to the Court).
4. The Union contends that no offence has occurred. The
worker criticised the area manager. This is not an
offence warranting the harsh penalties imposed by the
Company. In his 12 years in the employment the worker
has never been disciplined. He has been treated most
unjustly. The Union seeks to have the worker reinstated
to his former position and that any monies due to him
during his period of suspension be made good by the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned,as a chargehand, was in a position
of trust and responsibility. It was essential that
management could have complete confidence in him at all
times. The worker, by his actions, damaged his
relationship with management and undermined their
confidence in him. The worker is expected to respect
authority and communicate with his superiors in a
positive and constructive manner and show exemplary
behaviour at all times. The worker's behaviour was an
open display of contempt for management and amounted to
insubordination. The Company could not tolerate such
behaviour and had to deal with it firmly.
2. The Company took the most lenient option available by
transferring him to another store, located near his
home. His weekly wage was red-circled. There is
precedent in the Company for transferring chargehands as
a disciplinary measure.
3. The Company rejects the Union's claim regarding the
industrial relations climate obtaining at the Baggot
Street branch. While management accepts that there have
been problems they have been resolved in a fair manner.
4. The Company accepted the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation as reasonable and 'balanced' even though
it had reservations about the period of paid suspension
awarded to the worker. The Company asks the Court to
uphold the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that the
employee was guilty of misconduct.
However, the Court also finds that the Company failed to deal with
the actions of misconduct in accordance with their own
Disciplinary Procedures.
Accordingly the Court finds that the employee was unfairly treated
and should be reinstated to his position of chargehand in Upper
Baggot Street and that his period of suspension without pay should
be transferred into paid suspension. He should be issued with a
written warning with regard to the incident which should apply in
accordance with the provisions of the Company Disciplinary
Procedures.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th August, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. ---------------
Deputy Chairman