Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94537 Case Number: LCR14685 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (S.I.P.T.U.;I.C.T.U |
The disciplining of a driver in Cork.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by all
the interested parties.
The perception by the Union side that the disciplinary procedures
are not applied across the Company should be a source of concern
to the Company in maintaining the confidence of employees in the
procedures.
However, the Court does not consider that the application of the
agreed disciplinary procedures in this case was victimisation as
claimed by the Union.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the decision of the Appeals
Board be implemented in this case.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94537 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14685
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (S.I.P.T.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. The disciplining of a driver in Cork.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. As a result of an incident in Cork on the 27th June,
1993 the Local Manager following a disciplinary hearing
imposed a 2 week suspension on a driver. The Union
lodged an appeal against the suspension and subsequently
the penalty was reduced to 7 days actual suspension,
with 5 days suspension to be recorded and a final
written warning as to the worker's future behaviour.
The Union however, did not accept the decision of the
Appeals Board and requested that the matter be referred
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company rejected
the services of the Labour Relations Commission. The
Union agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 1st February,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is a member of S.I.P.T.U's National
Negotiation Committee and chairperson of the Union's Bus
Section in Cork. He was interviewed by Management and
advised that he faced a disciplinary hearing in respect
of an alleged offence which took place on 17th June,
1993. The hearing took place on 28th July, 1993 at
which Management outlined the circumstances on which the
worker was changed. In addition, Management outlined
other incidents that had occurred but which had no
bearing on the particular case. The Union objected to
this and advised Management that they would only deal
with the current issue and not the past.
2. On the morning of the alleged incident each member of
staff received a letter in their pay packets requesting
them not to support an official trade dispute in Sligo.
The worker who is a Union official requested Management
to withdraw the letters but this was refused. The
worker advised the traffic Inspector that he would not
be taking up his duty that morning. No picket or other
form of industrial action was taken by the worker but as
a result of his action other members of staff failed to
report for duty. Following the intervention of the
Union full operations were back in place including the
worker taking up his duty.
3. The worker concerned is a loyal and hard working
employee and this view is supported by the District
Manager. No disciplinary action was taken against other
workers who did not report for duty on the day of the
alleged offence. Since the incident of the 17th June,
1993 a stoppage of 2 hours took place on the 6th
September, 1994 when no buses operated from the garage
but no one was charged under the disciplinary procedures
as a result of this action. The Union considers that
the worker is being singled out because of his position
within the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The charge against the worker was fully dealt with
through the disciplinary procedures agreed with the
Unions in respect of operative grades within the
Company. The procedures are recognised by all concerned
as being fair and accordingly cases are not referred to
third parties. The Company has always accepted the
result of the disciplinary procedures including cases
where the Company Manager's decision was altered or
rescinded by the Appeals Board.
2. The conduct of the worker concerned on the 17th June,
1993 which led to a major disruption of services at the
bus depot was of a very serious nature. The unofficial
stoppage resulted in a substantial loss of revenue and
also undermined customer confidence in the Company.
Since the processing of the charge through the agreed
disciplinary procedures the Union has attempted to block
the implementation of the period of suspension on the
worker. It is incumbent on both sides to accept the
outcome of these procedures. When compared to the
serious nature of the charge, the suspension as
recommended by the Appeals Board is reasonable. The
Company refutes any allegations that the worker was
singled out because he is a union representative.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by all
the interested parties.
The perception by the Union side that the disciplinary procedures
are not applied across the Company should be a source of concern
to the Company in maintaining the confidence of employees in the
procedures.
However, the Court does not consider that the application of the
agreed disciplinary procedures in this case was victimisation as
claimed by the Union.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the decision of the Appeals
Board be implemented in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd February, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.