Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95234 Case Number: AD9556 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - A WORKER;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED;TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST468/94.
Recommendation:
The Court finds no reason to amend the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and, therefore, rejects the Union's appeal.
The Court in doing so can only restate the seriousness of the
situation for the appellant.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95234 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED
TRADES AND TECHNICIANS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST468/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 5th September, 1994, the worker reported to a flat at
135 Dorset Street to carry out maintenance. The worker
claims that he arrived at 9.15 a.m. but could get no reply
from the tenant. He waited approximately 30 minutes and then
proceeded to an adjacent block of flats where he asked the
caretaker if there were any jobs to be done. He claims that
he returned to Dorset Street at 10.35 a.m. where his foreman
was waiting for him. The worker claims that the foreman
would not listen to his explanation for his absence. He
denies that he used threatening or abusive language to the
foreman.
The foreman maintains that he called to the flat at 9.55 a.m.
with materials for the job. He could not locate the worker
and was told by the tenant that nobody had called to the flat
on that morning. The foreman waited until 10.55 a.m. for the
worker to appear. He claims that the worker was abusive to
him when questioned about his absence.
At approximately 12.00 noon an inspector arrived and told the
worker that he was suspended. The worker was interviewed at
a disciplinary hearing the following morning and 6 days
suspension was imposed.
The matter was appealed to the Personnel Department of the
Corporation. However, no reduction in the suspension was
recommended. The worker was issued with a final written
warning regarding his future conduct on 27th September, 1994.
The decision was then appealed by the Union to a Rights
Commissioner and a hearing took place on 21st February, 1995.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the penalty imposed should be amended
to three days suspension without pay and that the final
written warning issued and dated 27/09/94 should stand
as imposed for the period specified by agreements and
custom and practice".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
3rd April, 1995, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
2nd June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The foreman did not listen to the worker's explanation
for his absence. The worker did not use threatening or
abusive language to the foreman. A number of witnesses
have testified to this (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Rights Commissioner, in his findings, dealt with the
worker's past problems rather than the events that
occurred on the morning in question.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was absent without permission from his
workplace. He used abusive and threatening language to
the foreman.
2. The worker has a long history of disciplinary problems
with the Corporation since he commenced employment in
1982 (details supplied to the Court). He was awaiting a
Rights Commissioner's investigation into a separate but
similar disciplinary matter at the time of the incident
on 5th September, 1994. The Corporation has been very
tolerant with the worker considering his past history.
DECISION:
The Court finds no reason to amend the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and, therefore, rejects the Union's appeal.
The Court in doing so can only restate the seriousness of the
situation for the appellant.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman