Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95200 Case Number: LCR14791 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning disciplinary action taken by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions, the Court is
faced with conflicting evidence that can only be clarified by
bringing all the relevant people to the Court for questioning.
While the Court was prepared to do this, the Court is conscious
that in so doing, it was likely that the working relationships
between individual employees, some of whom are not directly
involved in this issue, could be damaged irreparably.
While the Court cannot and will not condone intimidation by anyone
in the workplace, particularly someone in a position of
responsibility, taking into account all of the circumstances of
this case, the Court believes it is in everyone's interest to
avoid causing further distress to individuals, if possible.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Convenor accepts that,
in this case, his actions, intentionally or otherwise, resulted in
a fellow employee feeling intimidated. The Court further
recommends that he be conscious of his position as Convenor when
dealing with other employees in the future. In return the Company
will take no further action on this occasion.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95200 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14791
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AIRMOTIVE IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary action taken by the Company
against a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aer Lingus, is a
private sector company which provides jet engine overhaul
facilities to domestic and international airlines. It
employs 448 workers at present. The dispute resulted from
disciplinary action taken by the Company following the
investigation of a complaint made by a colleague that the
worker in question, Convenor Steward and group of unions
chairperson, had behaved in an intimidatory manner. The
alleged intimidation included (inter alia) verbal utterances
by the Convenor relating to the work of the complainant, an
accusation by the Convenor that the complainant had been 'bad
mouthing inspectors' and a suggestion by the Convenor that
the complainant should not participate in a team briefing at
Citiwest. The disciplinary action took the form of two
weeks' suspension without pay and a written warning. The
Union carried out its own investigation into the matter and
concluded that the alleged intimidation had not taken place.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 9th of January,
1995, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 24th of March, 1995, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of
May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's allegations are unfounded and unwarranted
and will not be tolerated. It became clear, following
the Union's investigation into the matter that nothing
was said in exchanges involving the worker, that
constitutes intimidation (details supplied to the
Court).
2. Management has consistently stated its dislike for the
Plant Convenor. In this instance, the colleague
expressed his concern that the issue should be dealt
with at local level. However, the Company has seized on
the opportunity and has exaggerated the matter out of
all proportion.
3. The disciplinary action taken by the Company is contrary
to natural justice. The Union will do its utmost to
uphold its position on this matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A member of staff was publicly subjected to intolerable
pressure and mental anguish, affecting both his working
and domestic life. The harassment be suffered was
motivated primarily by an abuse of power by the convenor
steward (details supplied to the Court).
2. Workers have an inviolable, basic right to attend their
work and carry out their duties, free from intimidation
and humiliation. The Plant Convenor's complete denial
of the serious allegations raised, his outright refusal
to express even the slightest degree of regret, his
refusal to ensure that there would be no recurrence,
left the Company with no alternative but to proceed with
disciplinary action. The Company is obliged to defend
the right of employees to go about their duties, without
interference.
3. Management refutes the claim that it has stated its
dislike for the Plant Convenor involved in this case.
There, however, have been difficulties concerning a
certain evasiveness on his part when dealing with
certain issues. Such difficulties never arose in the
Company's previous dealings with upwards of 100 shop
stewards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions, the Court is
faced with conflicting evidence that can only be clarified by
bringing all the relevant people to the Court for questioning.
While the Court was prepared to do this, the Court is conscious
that in so doing, it was likely that the working relationships
between individual employees, some of whom are not directly
involved in this issue, could be damaged irreparably.
While the Court cannot and will not condone intimidation by anyone
in the workplace, particularly someone in a position of
responsibility, taking into account all of the circumstances of
this case, the Court believes it is in everyone's interest to
avoid causing further distress to individuals, if possible.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Convenor accepts that,
in this case, his actions, intentionally or otherwise, resulted in
a fellow employee feeling intimidated. The Court further
recommends that he be conscious of his position as Convenor when
dealing with other employees in the future. In return the Company
will take no further action on this occasion.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.