FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HENRY DENNY AND SONS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. St 14/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the meat processing business. The appeal concerns a worker who has been employed by the Company since 1990. In November, 1995, the Company imposed a period of suspension on the worker for refusing to carry out a supervisor's instructions on the 28th November, 1995. The worker was suspended from the 4th to the 27th December, 1995. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 31st May, 1996, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"In the light of the above my recommendation is that the suspension should be reduced to one of one week."
On the 11th June, 1996, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Tralee on the 10th October, 1996. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties provide additional information to the Court. A further hearing was held in Tralee on the 3rd December, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In relation to the two instructions which the worker received on the 28th November, 1995 from his supervisor to go to different production lines, the worker explained to his supervisor that he was suffering from a back injury and requested less arduous work. He did not refuse to comply with the instructions but merely asked to be put on lighter work.
2. The worker's suspension was imposed without formal consultation taking place with the Union. The Company was not available to discuss the circumstances of the suspension until 8th December. At no time during this period was the claimant afforded an opportunity to defend himself. The Company acted solely on the word of their supervisor.
3. The worker has been employed by the Company for six years and has held a variety of jobs. He has an excellent time-keeping record and has not been reprimanded in the past. Since November, 1995, the worker has been harassed and subjected to intolerable treatment. The worker has been treated in an unfair and unjust manner. The Union is seeking the rescinding of the warning and suspension imposed on the 28th November. Full compensation should be paid to the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The plant is operated on a line principle where both killing/cutting is completed as product is conveyed through the plant by mechanical means. Continuity is critical, and the two key elements essential to the process are permission to leave a work station, and flexibility in duties/skills. A breach in either of these accepted practices would have severe consequential effects on production.
2. The worker refused to carry out two legitimate instructions given to him by a supervisor on the 28th November, and left his workstation without permission. He also displayed a worrying attitude to supervision during the week prior to the incident. (Details supplied to the Court). The worker's conditions of employment contained clear clauses on flexibility and unexcused absence.
3. The Company imposed the suspension following a comprehensive investigation of the incident. As with similar cases of serious misconduct the dismissal of the worker was considered, taking into account the severity of the refusal to work, leaving the work station without permission and his attitude to supervision. It was decided to reduce the disciplinary process to a period of suspension without pay, taking into account the worker's previous record and strong representations made by the Union on his behalf.
4. The Company acted fairly in its treatment of the worker. A full and detailed investigation was conducted taking all factors into account. In effect the worker's action was a dismissable offence. However, the Company agreed that a period of suspension without pay would be imposed.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the views raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions and the evidence given by members of management and the staff.
The Court finds that, given all the circumstances, the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner was reasonable.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal of the employee concerned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
13th December, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.