Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94133 Case Number: AD9548 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CROWN EQUIPMENT - and - AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION |
Appeal, by the Union, of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 396/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94133 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CROWN EQUIPMENT
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the Union, of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. BC 396/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a dispute that arose following the
deduction by the Company, of 3 hours' pay from each of 20
workers, following an unofficial stoppage of work, on the
26th of May, 1993. The stoppage followed the turning off of
a 'blower' in the welding department. The matter was
investigated by a Rights Commissioner, on the 1st of
February, 1994, who found that the action taken by the 20
workers was in breach of Union/Management agreements. He
also found that the blower had been turned off in good faith,
in response to a request by one of the workers. The Rights
Commissioner recommended "that the claim of the Trade Union
must fail".
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969, on the 3rd of March, 1994. The appeal was heard,
in Galway, on the 17th of May, 1995, (the earliest date
convenient to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was clearly in breach of the Company/Union
agreement by not discussing the matter of the blower
with either the workers or the local safety
representative.
2. By turning off the blower, the Company prevented its use
for the purpose for which it was intended.
3. The Company acted in a manner contrary to the Safety,
Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 (details supplied
to the Court).
4. The Rights Commissioner's finding also made reference to
the fact that the Company, in turning off the blower
system was acting on a request made by a group of
employees. This was not the case. There was one
individual involved who, as the Union has already
pointed out, was within his rights to complain. The
onus was on management to investigate the matter and to
hold consultation with all the relevant parties.
5. In his findings, the Rights Commissioner made reference
to only four employees having been in the immediate
vicinity serviced by the blower. However, the general
condition of the extraction Air/Ventilation Systems
(details supplied) and the detrimental effect any change
would have had on the conditions pertaining in that
general area should have been taken into consideration.
6. The workers only stopped work when they found all
existing communication channels were shut off to them.
In order to protect their own health and safety they had
no choice but to stop work until the employer again took
on his role and responsibilities as agreed in the
Company/Union agreement and under the Act.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner made the correct decision. The
action taken by the workers concerned was a clear breach
of the Union/ Management agreement.
2. As an industrial relations practice, there should be no
reward for unofficial action. Disciplinary action
might, in fact, have been warranted in this instance.
3. There were other avenues open to the workers and their
representatives rather than taking unofficial action.
The issue was not one of life or death. The Company was
reacting to a legitimate request by one of the employees
to have the blower turned off.
4. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing, the Union tried to
emphasise that the issue was a health and safety matter.
The Union position on this was properly rejected by the
Rights Commissioner.
5. There were no circumstances which were so overwhelming
as to justify or entitle employees to stop working at
the time.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman