Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95263 Case Number: AD9586 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LIEBIG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation GC50/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the circumstances of this
case, finds that the actions of the Company were not unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Union.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95263 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LIEBIG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation GC50/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of a German manufacturing
Company, which was established in 1969 and employs a
workforce of 67. It specialises in the manufacture of safety
bolts for the construction industry and mainly exports to
Britain, France and to its parent plant in Germany.
The dispute concerns a written warning for unacceptable
conduct which was issued to a worker, a shop steward, in
September, 1994. The worker concerned has been employed by
the Company since 20th June, 1986. The Union appealed the
issuing of the warning to a Rights Commissioner under the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and a hearing took place on
21st February, 1995. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation stated that:-
"the Company acted fairly and within their Comprehensive
Agreement with the Union. Shop stewards have a
particular responsibility, and I believe that "the
worker" acted hastily in this case. I would however,
because of eventual agreement, recommend that the
incident be recorded on her Personnel File for six
months".
The recommendation was subsequently appealed to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Tralee,
on 23rd November, 1995, the earliest date suitable to both
parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company requested volunteers to work the Company's
Summer shutdown from 1st to 5th August, 1994 inclusive.
The worker, who was also a shop steward, met with
management on 1st August to discuss the rate of pay for
that day, a Public Holiday.
2. The worker contended that double time was the
appropriate rate for working on a Public Holiday. As
this was not agreeable to management the worker
indicated her intention to leave the premises at 10.00
a.m. However, management insisted that she leave
immediately.
3. The worker should not have been forced to leave earlier
than her stated time of departure. The Company
subsequently paid double time to the other workers, thus
vindicating her position. The worker should be paid
double time to 10.00 a.m. at least, and the written
warning should be discounted as she attended for duty on
1st August, 1994 on a voluntary basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a long standing practice of transferring
the August Public Holiday to Good Friday, with a rate of
150% applicable to the August Public Holiday. The
worker concerned volunteered to work, but on
commencement of duty disputed the rate of pay. In her
position as shop steward she could have worked "under
protest" until an agreement was reached. It was
considered gross insubordination to leave her job and
set a very poor example to other members of staff.
2. The Company has had to invoke formal disciplinary action
against the worker concerned, on at least five occasions
since 1986. Management has exercised unlimited patience
in dealing with this worker and has administered
discipline in a fair and lenient manner.
3. The Rights Commissioner found that the Company had acted
fairly and within the terms of the Comprehensive
Company/Union Agreement, and that the worker had acted
in haste.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all of the circumstances of this
case, finds that the actions of the Company were not unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner and rejects the appeal of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
D.G./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman