FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST9/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 4 workers employed as departmental operatives in Boole library in University College Cork (UCC). Meetings took place in October and November, 1995, between College management and the Union at which the issues discussed were (a) entrance to Boole library (including the checking of I.D.s), (b) back door entrance and (c) general security. The changes proposed would involve a change in the existing roster.
The Union claims that the following occurred: On 4th December, 1995, the worker on duty (worker A) checked all I.D.s of persons entering the library. This continued until 4.00 p.m. During the day, the sub-librarian came to the security desk and informed staff that, according to her new roster, a different operative should have been on duty. She was informed of the Union's position, i.e. that no formal agreement of the new roster had been reached.
At 4.00 p.m. worker B came on duty. Workers A and B were asked to report to the librarian. They were informed by him that, unless they complied with all changes on the new roster, they would be suspended until further notice. The workers responded that they would continue to work to the agreed roster until formal agreement between the parties was reached. They were verbally informed of their suspension at 5.15 p.m. that evening.
On 5th December, worker C reported for duty. He was told by the librarian that he must work the new roster or be suspended. He replied that he would continue to work the agreed roster as he had done the previous day, including checking I.D.s all day. The worker was informed that he was suspended from duty. A fourth worker, worker D, found that he was unable to continue working as 3 of his colleagues were suspended. He left the building at 10.30 a.m. after informing the sub-librarian of his decision.
Workers A, B and C were suspended without pay for the 2-day period of 5th/6th December. Worker D suffered a loss of pay of £100, the same amount as the other 3 workers. Following a conciliation conference on 6th December, a return to work on the old roster was agreed, pending further discussions.
As a gesture, the College loaned the 4 workers £100 each, equivalent to the loss of pay, with the money to be repaid in time. To date each worker has repaid £30. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on 25th July, 1996. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I recommend that the College waives the repayment of the
£70 loan to the four persons concerned and that the three
letters of suspension are considered to have lapsed from
30th November, 1996."
The College appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 15th August, 1996, and the Union appealed it on 29th August, 1996, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th November, 1996, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management was informed on 29th November, 1995 that any changes to the existing roster or work practices, including the checking of I.D.s, would have to be discussed and agreed with the Union. The daily log book shows that contact was made with the sub-librarian.
2. On the 4th December, the workers checked all I.D.s, which was a change of practise. At all stages they continued to carry out their duties and responsibilities. The security desk was attended at all times. The roster being proposed by management was unworkable (details of the new roster were supplied to the Court).
3. Workers A, B and C have respectively 27 years, 17 years and 27 years service and at no time in their service were they issued with any warnings or suspensions. Management's response to the difficulty was totally disproportionate to the problem. They did not contact the Union before suspending the workers. At no time were standards of work lowered on the day in question, as management has suggested. Following negotions, agreement was reached on a new roster, effective from 7th March, 1996. If these negotiations had taken place prior to 4th November, 1995 there would have been no dispute.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The changes to the roster were the subject of detailed discussions in October/November, 1995. Documentation dealing with these changes was given to each of the workers concerned to verify and confirm what would be happening with effect from 4th December. None of the workers indicated that any problems existed with the proposed new roster. They knew the work that was required of them but refused to do it on the day in question.
2. The workers knew that the non-implemenation of the new roster would affect the library service and cause confusion. They were asked to work under protest if necessary, but refused to do so, and gave no explanation for their refusal. The Company was left with no option but to suspend the workers.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all the information presented, and being conscious of the conflicting evidence presented on a number of key issues, believes that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be accepted as a way of resolving this case.
The Court, therefore, rejects both appeals and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
2nd December, 1996______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.