Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95100 Case Number: AD9522 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW349/94.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that with the exception of the two issues
considered by the Rights Commissioner the behaviour of the
claimant was not formally brought to his attention.
Given the circumstances it is the view of the Court that the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should stand and in view
of the nature of the complaints that the claimant should accept
the formal warning as referred to in the Company's letter of 11th
November, 1994 to the Union.
Arrangements should be made for the claimant to be given such
individual training/counselling as may be necessary to assist him
to carry out his duties to an acceptable standard of behaviour.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95100 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2295
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AIRMOTIVE IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW349/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in the overhaul of jet engines
and employs 454 workers. The dispute concerns a worker
who is employed by the Company as a stores supervisor.
In May, 1994 an incident occurred in the stores area
which involved the worker and a valued customer of the
Company. The customer accompanied by a Company service
engineer arrived at the stores area to view engine
parts. The Company maintains that the worker acted in a
very rude manner to the customer and damaged the
Company's standing. The Company also claims that
subsequently the worker concerned was rude to a female
goods shipping clerk on two occasions.
In November, 1994, the Company, having investigated the
complaints imposed disciplinary procedures on the worker
as follows:-
1. A two week suspension without pay
2. A written warning to the effect that any repeat of
the behaviour would result in immediate dismissal.
2. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated
and referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. On the 20th December, 1994 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company withdraws the
proposed suspension and that the worker recognises
the concern of the Company regarding his conduct".
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
On the 24th January, 1995 the Company appealed the
Rights Commissioners recommendation to the Labour Court.
The Court heard the appeal on the 14th March, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company operates in an extremely competitive and
declining market and has suffered continuing losses in
recent years. It is extremely important that the
Company retain its existing customer base. Having
regard to this the worker's conscious and deliberate
misconduct involving a major customer cannot be
condoned. It amounted to serious misconduct and the
Company is quite justified in taking disciplinary action
against the worker.
2. A further incident involving a female temporary clerk
also occurred when the worker concerned treated this
colleague in a rude and aggressive manner.
3. Over the years the Company has made many attempts to
assist and guide the worker in his dealings with people
but he persists in behaviour which is of an abrasive and
confrontational manner.
4. The worker is well aware that, in his role as
supervisor, he is required to deal with subordinates,
other staff and customers and that a particular level of
behaviour is expected. Despite management's attempts to
assist him he persists in behaving in an abrasive,
confrontational manner. It is essential that the worker
accepts that his continued employment with the Company
is dependent on a major improvement in his conduct.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union does not agree with the Company's
interpretation of the events leading to the decision to
discipline the worker. The worker deals with
customers/colleagues in a businesslike manner.
2. The worker has a good record in the employment and has
not been the subject of disciplinary proceedings/written
warnings in the past. He has never been suspended from
his duties.
3. The worker concerned works in a very difficult area of
the Company and sticks rigidly to the Company's
regulations in relation to the admission of people to
the stores area. He has been supported by the Company
in the past. He was only complying with the regulations
in the case of the visitor with the customer service
engineer. In relation to the shipping clerk the worker
treated her in a businesslike manner.
4. The Union accepts that all workers/customers are
entitled to be treated courteously. The Union is also
of the view that supervising/management staff are
entitled to be advised by the Company of shortcomings in
their behaviour and treated in a fair and reasonable
manner. The worker should have been alerted to any
shortcomings in his behaviour in a formal way. At no
stage did such a procedural transaction occur between
the Company and the worker. It is the Union's
contention that before the written warning disciplinary
stage is reached the worker should receive counselling
and preliminary warnings.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that with the exception of the two issues
considered by the Rights Commissioner the behaviour of the
claimant was not formally brought to his attention.
Given the circumstances it is the view of the Court that the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should stand and in view
of the nature of the complaints that the claimant should accept
the formal warning as referred to in the Company's letter of 11th
November, 1994 to the Union.
Arrangements should be made for the claimant to be given such
individual training/counselling as may be necessary to assist him
to carry out his duties to an acceptable standard of behaviour.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd March, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman