Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95480 Case Number: LCR14933 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FARRELL BROTHERS (ARDEE) LTD - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the suspension for one week of three workers.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that
the agreed procedures should have been applied on the Monday
morning in this case. The Court, accordingly, recommends that the
workers be paid for the period of suspension, and that a verbal
warning, effective for three months from the date of this
Recommendation, be issued.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95480 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14933
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FARRELL BROTHERS (ARDEE) LTD
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
Dispute concerning the suspension for one week of three
workers.
BACKGROUND:
The Company is in the business of the manufacture of office
systems and contract furniture, and employs 25-30 workers.
On Saturday the 7th of January, 1995, due to an electrical
fault/power failure, the dust extractor system on a sanding
machine ceased to function, leading to unpleasant conditions
in the area. The workers were provided with face masks and
were moved to another area while the sander was being fixed.
When asked to return to the area, prior to the fault being
corrected, two workers refused and were sent home. A third
worker followed shortly afterwards. On the following Monday,
the three presented themselves for work at which time they
were informed of their suspension. The Union claims that the
workers should be paid for the week of their suspension as
they had not intended to deprive the Company of their
services, but had withdrawn their services as the conditions
that arose in the sanding area were unhealthy in the extreme.
The Company claims that the workers should have persevered in
the sanding area as the Company had to meet a tight schedule
for an order for the U.K. The Union initially sought to have
the matter investigated by the Labour Relations Commission
and subsequently referred the dispute to the Labour Court, on
the 18th of August, 1995, in accordance with Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out
its investigation, in Dundalk, on the 27th of September,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Extraction is required on the sanding machine as it cannot be
operated without creating dust, which could lead to health
problems for those working in the area.
2. The workers should be paid for the 5-day period of their
suspension, which was unjustified in the circumstances and
was in breach of the 'grievance agreement' (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The Company acted harshly, given the conditions that
prevailed on the Saturday morning. The workers deserve
credit for the time they spent on the machine in difficult
conditions, rather than to be deprived of earnings for a
week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In order to remain viable, and to meet customer needs, the
Company cannot allow a precedent that, whenever a problem
arises, operators can refuse to work.
2. It is unfair to the workers who were prepared to work through
the problem that colleagues be allowed to refuse to work.
3. Admittedly, conditions were unpleasant. However, failure to
meet customers' requirements would have resulted from the
shutdown of the factory until Monday the 9th, and would have
resulted in the loss of a contract worth #1 million.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that
the agreed procedures should have been applied on the Monday
morning in this case. The Court, accordingly, recommends that the
workers be paid for the period of suspension, and that a verbal
warning, effective for three months from the date of this
Recommendation, be issued.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th October, 1995 Evelyn Owens
M.K./A.K. ------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.