Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94392 Case Number: LCR14652 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ALLIED SIGNAL - and - TECHNICAL ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary action taken against 8 workers.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties. The
Court has also had sight of two relevent documents.
(a) Company/Union agreement of 1985 and
(b) copy of contract of employment signed by 7 of the 8 workers
engaged in this dispute.
There is a significant difference in the documents as to how the
disciplinary action is recorded.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Court
recommends that the Company agree to delete the warnings from the
records of the employees from 1st March, 1995.
The Court further urges the parties to address the differences in
the documents referred to above as a matter of urgency.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94392 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14652
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ALLIED SIGNAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary action taken against 8
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures compressor and turbine wheels
for the automotive industry and blades and vanes for the
airmotive industry in 2 factories on the Waterford
Industrial Estate. It employs 418 workers.
2. It is alleged by the Company that on the night shift of
December 1st/2nd, 1993, 8 workers extended their
teabreaks and took unauthorised breaks. The only
supervisor was provided by the leadhand who noted the
workers names and times.
3. The Company took disciplinary action against the 8
workers in the form of a verbal warning. Under the
agreed disciplinary procedures of the Company, the
warnings have now time lapsed but remain on file.
4. There were 22 workers on the shift and the Union refused
to accept that 8 workers had taken extended breaks. The
Union appealed against the disciplinary action and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 14th March, 1994.
5. No progress was made at conciliation and on 28th July,
1994, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place in Waterford on
19th October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. With the exception of 4 workers, the rest of the shift
took their breaks together. The Union has never
received any reason as to why the Company singled out 8
workers for disciplinary action. Neither has the
Company ever provided any evidence of wrongdoing by any
worker on the shift.
2. All members of the shift are prepared to refute the
Company's allegations. Unfortunately the Company has
ignored its own workers. This is an example of the poor
relationship which existed between the workers and
management prior to this alleged incident (details
supplied).
3. The Union finds it difficult to understand why the
Company's management did not take immediate action
against the workers when the incidents are alleged to
have taken place. The direct evidence of the workers on
the shift refutes the Company's allegation. The Court
is requested to recommend that the disciplinary action
be withdrawn from the workers' records.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company disciplined workers for a clear and serious
breach of operating conditions agreed with the Union.
The action taken was at the lowest level of the
disciplinary procedure and was fully justified.
2. The Company must be able to take reasonable action in
the circumstances which applied on the shift of 1st/2nd
December, 1993. It must be open to the Company to
ensure uniform standards of conduct to dispel any
possible view that certain workers must comply and
others can ignore the rules. Two weeks prior to the
incident, warnings were issued by line management about
breaks during the shift.
3. The Company seeks to operate progressive employee
relations policies to motivate workers by positive
means. The formal disciplinary procedure is not the
first option considered when conduct or performance fall
short of standards. The Company has never before had a
Labour Court investigation on a disciplinary matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties. The
Court has also had sight of two relevent documents.
(a) Company/Union agreement of 1985 and
(b) copy of contract of employment signed by 7 of the 8 workers
engaged in this dispute.
There is a significant difference in the documents as to how the
disciplinary action is recorded.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Court
recommends that the Company agree to delete the warnings from the
records of the employees from 1st March, 1995.
The Court further urges the parties to address the differences in
the documents referred to above as a matter of urgency.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th January, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.