Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94715 Case Number: AD9521 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: P.W.A. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW262/94.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the issues expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
dispute could have been avoided if the matter had been corrected
when reported.
However, given all of the circumstances, the Court finds that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld and the
appeal of the claimant rejected.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94715 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
P.W.A. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW262/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in the business of
remanufacturing jet engine cases for the aircraft
industry and employs 105 workers. The worker concerned
was working on the evening shift on Wednesday 17th July,
1994. He was instructed by his supervisor on two
occasions during the shift to work on the cleaning line.
He refused to work there on the grounds that there was
no emergency stop button fitted to the overhead crane.
The worker was suspended with pay pending a disciplinary
investigation. Following the investigation the worker
was suspended without pay effective from 4th to 17th
August, 1994.
2. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated
and referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 14th November,
1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union accepts the discipline
imposed in this instance."
On the 9th December, 1994 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on the 14th March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's refusal to work on the cleaning line
related purely to a safety issue. He could not be
expected to operate in an area where his safety was in
jeopardy. The fault relating to the stop button had
been reported to Management on a number of occasions
previously but no action was taken to repair it.
2. The Company is in breach of the Company/Union Agreement
which states that Management must provide "a clean, safe
and agreeable working environment."
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company appreciates the worker's concern at there
being no emergency stop button fitted on the crane.
However, when the worker was instructed to go back on
the cleaning line a second time the crane was inoperable
and being repaired. The area he was directed to work in
was 50 feet from the out-of-service crane.
2. The worker is in clear breach of the Company/Union
Agreement. This breach amounts to gross misconduct
which would allow the Company to terminate the worker's
employment. The Company exercised leniency by not
terminating his contract of employment. It is totally
unreasonable that the worker should refuse to carry out
a lawful instruction and expect that there would be no
consequences.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the issues expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
dispute could have been avoided if the matter had been corrected
when reported.
However, given all of the circumstances, the Court finds that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld and the
appeal of the claimant rejected.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd March, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman