Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95449 Case Number: AD9583 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TYTEX IRELAND LIMITED (Represented by IBEC) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST46/95 concerning the suspension of two workers.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the claimants accept that they
took a principled stand and that arising from
that they have a price to pay. Their two
colleagues obviously did not share their values
and accordingly did not suffer to the same
degree. I cannot see how I can reasonably
relieve them of the hardship which they have
helped to impose on themselves by their
principled stand. Accordingly I have to
recommend that their claim fails.
However, I further recommend that their records
be cleared 12 months after the serving of the
suspensions as I am satisfied that they realise
the error they committed on the night in question
and a repeat is not likely again.
Finally I would like the employer to note my
concerns in 4 above in the interests of better
industrial relations at the plant."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 31st July, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Cork on 9th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the two
workers concerned initiated a work stoppage. On the
night in question the machinery was shut down for safety
reasons, thereby reducing the risk of an accident.
2. The machinery at the plant could be classified as high
risk machinery. Part of the safety requirements are
that emergency telephone numbers are displayed next to
the telephone.
3. There has been on-going difficulty in the plant
regarding the telephones being out of order and at times
switched off. Representations have been made to the
Company on a number of occasions concerning this matter.
Following the Rights Commissioner's hearing the
telephone was again out of order on 18th, 19th and 20th
August, 1995.
4. The Rights Commissioner accepted that there had been
problems in the past with communication outwards and
that the Company was guilty of bad industrial relations
practices. He noted that it is highly unusual for an
employer to impose a suspension and later to increase
that suspension following an appeal by the workers in
accordance with the procedural agreement.
5. The Company contributed to the events of 26th July,1994
by its failure to adhere to its own safety regulations.
In the circumstances the Union is seeking that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be overturned and
that the workers appeal against the original suspension
be upheld.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There was no emergency on the night in question. The
workers stopped work but did not vacate the building.
2. The action taken was totally out of proportion to any
concerns that the two workers may have had regarding the
non-function of the telephone system.
3. The suspension of the workers was justified for the
following reasons:-
(1) The employees do not seem to accept that their
actions were serious and were unjustified.
(2) There is no guarantee that similar action would not
be taken by these employees in the future.
(3) The Company's loss of production on the night
concerned amounted to 6% of the total weeks
production, which was not recoverable, and which
meant a sales loss to the Company of several
thousand pounds.
(4) The action taken by the Company was lenient in this
case. Given the facts, dismissal would have been
justified. In the circumstances the Court is requested
to endorse the Company's decision on the 4x12 hours
shift suspensions.
DECISION:
Having heard the submissions the Court finds as follows:-
(a) that the management allow the employees the opportunity to
give the assurance as to their future behaviour in line with
the assurance given by the other employees involved.
(b) In the event of (a) not being acceptable then the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95449 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
TYTEX IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST46/95 concerning the suspension of two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The two workers concerned are employed by the Company as
shift workers. The dispute before the Court concerns the
Company's decision to impose a four day suspension without
pay on both workers following a work stoppage involving four
workers on the night of 26th July, 1994.
The Union claims that on the night in question the telephone
at the plant was out of order and that all machinery was shut
down for safety reasons. The Company rejects the Union's
claim.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's
findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"Findings
1. I do not think the claimants realised the
full implications of their actions on the
night in question. Their actions were by
any reasonable interpretation seriously
questionable in law under the 1990
Industrial Relations Act. I am convinced
that they now realise the full implications
of such acts in future.
2. I accept the Union's word that there may
have been a problem with communication
outwards at night on occasions in the past.
That does not arise now given the
installation of new telephones. I am
satisfied that the claimants reaction was
out of all proportion to the problem which
they assumed existed on the night in
question. If the place was that unsafe why
did they remain on the premises in an
alleged state of isolation?
3. They took a principled stand which inflicted
loss on their employer. They have failed to
give the assurances sought by the employer
which two of their colleagues involved gave
readily. I do not see how I can readily
absolve them from their apparent culpability
when they refuse to explain their actions
fully to the employer.
4. I must refer to two matters which concern me
in relation to this matter generally. I
think it very unusual for any employer to
approach a disciplinary matter in the way in
which this was approached. To say to grown
men if you accept/agree a two day suspension
for your misdemeanour then we will not
impose a four day penalty. In effect this
means that the failure to make the act of
contrition is equivalent to the original
offence involved in this case which in my
view was very serious anyway. I also note
that the claimants did not appear to be
offered representation of their choice on
the occasion of the original investigation
by the Company. In my view neither of these
things should occur again as both are bad
industrial relations practices in my view.
Recommendation
I recommend that the claimants accept that they
took a principled stand and that arising from
that they have a price to pay. Their two
colleagues obviously did not share their values
and accordingly did not suffer to the same
degree. I cannot see how I can reasonably
relieve them of the hardship which they have
helped to impose on themselves by their
principled stand. Accordingly I have to
recommend that their claim fails.
However, I further recommend that their records
be cleared 12 months after the serving of the
suspensions as I am satisfied that they realise
the error they committed on the night in question
and a repeat is not likely again.
Finally I would like the employer to note my
concerns in 4 above in the interests of better
industrial relations at the plant."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 31st July, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Cork on 9th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the two
workers concerned initiated a work stoppage. On the
night in question the machinery was shut down for safety
reasons, thereby reducing the risk of an accident.
2. The machinery at the plant could be classified as high
risk machinery. Part of the safety requirements are
that emergency telephone numbers are displayed next to
the telephone.
3. There has been on-going difficulty in the plant
regarding the telephones being out of order and at times
switched off. Representations have been made to the
Company on a number of occasions concerning this matter.
Following the Rights Commissioner's hearing the
telephone was again out of order on 18th, 19th and 20th
August, 1995.
4. The Rights Commissioner accepted that there had been
problems in the past with communication outwards and
that the Company was guilty of bad industrial relations
practices. He noted that it is highly unusual for an
employer to impose a suspension and later to increase
that suspension following an appeal by the workers in
accordance with the procedural agreement.
5. The Company contributed to the events of 26th July,1994
by its failure to adhere to its own safety regulations.
In the circumstances the Union is seeking that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be overturned and
that the workers appeal against the original suspension
be upheld.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There was no emergency on the night in question. The
workers stopped work but did not vacate the building.
2. The action taken was totally out of proportion to any
concerns that the two workers may have had regarding the
non-function of the telephone system.
3. The suspension of the workers was justified for the
following reasons:-
(1) The employees do not seem to accept that their
actions were serious and were unjustified.
(2) There is no guarantee that similar action would not
be taken by these employees in the future.
(3) The Company's loss of production on the night
concerned amounted to 6% of the total weeks
production, which was not recoverable, and which
meant a sales loss to the Company of several
thousand pounds.
(4) The action taken by the Company was lenient in this
case. Given the facts, dismissal would have been
justified. In the circumstances the Court is requested
to endorse the Company's decision on the 4x12 hours
shift suspensions.
DECISION:
Having heard the submissions the Court finds as follows:-
(a) that the management allow the employees the opportunity to
give the assurance as to their future behaviour in line with
the assurance given by the other employees involved.
(b) In the event of (a) not being acceptable then the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman