Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9520 Case Number: AD9516 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AN POST - and - A WORKER;COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW360/94.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions from
the parties and, taking into account the worker's past record, has
concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is fair in
the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9520 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AN POST
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW360/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns disciplinary action taken by the Company
against the worker.
The worker has been employed by the Company since 1982. He
was promoted to postal sorter in 1988 and works at the Dublin
Mails Centre (DMC) in Clondalkin.
On 13th August, 1994, the worker, without authorisation,
pressed an `emergency stop' button which shut off automated
sorting equipment at the Centre. He was suspended with pay
pending investigation of the incident. He has not yet
returned to work.
Following the enquiry and intervention by his Union the
Company decided to discipline him by recording a `serious
offence' warning against him (i) reducing his pay by three
increments, (ii) reassigning him to S.D.S. The worker
appealed the decision and referred the dispute to the Rights
Commissioner and a hearing took place on 12th December, 1994.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company amend the MP 184 (dated
25/11/94) to delete the increment reduction and the
relocation to S.D.S., and that the worker accepts this
in settlement of this dispute."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
on 11th January, 1995, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
13th February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The machinery was stopped for a short time only. The
Company did not suffer financial loss or service quality
as a result. The worker's action was spontaneous. He
was not aware that the `emergency stop' button would
shut down more than the immediate piece of machinery.
2. The worker has already suffered greatly as a result of
the penalties imposed by the Company. He has been
suspended for six months. The recording of a `serious
offence' bars him from promotion. Re-location to the
S.D.S. will deprive him of weekend overtime. It will
also be very difficult for the worker to adjust to the
new environment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The action of the worker in pressing the `emergency
stop' button was deliberate. The worker was fully
trained in the operation of the machinery and knew the
consequences if he pushed the button. His action would
normally result in dismissal.
2. The DMC is a high technology plant. Service quality
depends on the uninterrupted working of its automated
systems. The worker's explanation (details supplied to
the Court) is unacceptable.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions from
the parties and, taking into account the worker's past record, has
concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is fair in
the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th February, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman