Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94678 Case Number: AD955 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ST. PATRICKS COLLEGE MAYNOOTH - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC261/94.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties is of the view that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94678 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ST. PATRICKS COLLEGE MAYNOOTH
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. BC261/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed as a Security Officer at St. Patrick's
College Maynooth and has approximately 17 years service. It
is alleged that the worker breached his security duties on
several occasions during 1993/1994. Management state that on
numerous occasions the worker received verbal and written
warnings for breaches of the disciplinary code. The worker
refutes all the allegations. In August 1994 the College
imposed a penalty of 4 weeks suspension, coupled with a final
written warning.
The disciplinary measure was referred to the Rights
Commissioner who heard the case on the 13th October, 1994 and
a recommendation issued as follows:-
"that the worker be suspended without pay for 2 weeks and
be issued with a written warning".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court on 21st November, 1994. The Court heard
the appeal on the 17th January, 1995 under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The College accepted the uncorraborated and
unsubstantiated written report of a Security Officer
over an officer with 17 years service, in relation to
alleged breaches of security at the College. Any
transgressions on the part of the worker were minor and
totally out of line with the penalties imposed by the
College.
2. The College should not have included details of an
incident of some years ago in its submission to the
Rights Commissioner. The incident should have been
removed from the worker's record under the "lapse of
time" clause of the College's disciplinary code.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is of primary importance to the College that the
security of its staff and property is not placed in
jeopardy by irresponsible actions on the part of
Security Personnel. It is expected of Security staff,
that at all times, they act in a manner befitting their
important and responsible role in the security of the
College.
2. The College considers that it has been very lenient in
its dealings with the worker in relation to his
misdemeanours. Apart from the security aspect of this
case, the worker was reprimanded for various breaches of
the disciplinary code as follows:-
1. Not reporting for work when rostered following
annual leave;
2. when requested by supervisor to remove his bicycle
from the Sports Building responded in an aggressive
and insubordinate manner;
3. allowed non-security staff access to Security
Office in Arts Building in contravention of written
regulations posted in Security Office.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties is of the view that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd February, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman