Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95713 Case Number: AD9611 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DELPHI PACKARD ELECTRIC SYSTEMS IRELAND LTD. (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW363/95.
Recommendation:
The Court has taken careful note of the written and oral
submissions made by both parties in this appeal against a
Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner. The Court was also
mindful of the difficulties encountered by the parties in the
recent past.
In the Court's view the Shop Stewards dealt with a situation which
spontaneously arose in the factory on the morning in question in a
manner which resulted in a return to work. Given the lead up to
the events of that morning it is understandable that the Company
may have misinterpreted the situation. It is also obvious that had
the requested official meeting taken place the incident could have
been avoided.
The Court wishes to record that it does not agree with the Rights
Commissioner's expressed view as to when suspension with pay may be
imposed. The Court accepts that such action is valid as a
preliminary step prior to an investigation and decision on any
action to be taken and in accordance with the Union/Company
agreement.
In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld. The Court
interprets the words 'appropriate compensation' as being
restoration of wages lost while suspended without pay.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the Company's appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95713 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1196
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DELPHI PACKARD ELECTRIC SYSTEMS IRELAND LTD.
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW363/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute concerns 3 Shop Stewards who were
suspended for one week without pay, having previously been
suspended for a number of days with pay, arising from an incident
that occurred on the 3rd of October, 1995. On Monday the 2nd of
October, 1995, a meeting was requested by the shop stewards in
relation to their concerns over the implementation of a reduction
in personnel in the service department. The Company refused to
grant a meeting on the grounds that the proposed changes were
covered by agreement and, consequently, no meeting took place. On
Tuesday the 3rd of October, a gathering of employees took place in
the Shop Stewards' office, resulting in disruption to the assembly
lines. Arising from this, and following an investigation of the
matter by the Company's Personnel Department, 3 Shop Stewards were
suspended for 1 week without pay, from 16th of October, 1995, on
the grounds that they had conducted an unsanctioned meeting. The
Unions responded that the disciplining of the 3 was unwarranted and
unjustified and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. In his findings (7th November,
1995) the Rights Commissioner stated that he did not consider that
the 'meeting' had been premeditated or invoked by the Shop
Stewards, but rather was a spontaneous wish for clarification.
He stated that he did not believe suspension with pay to be an
absolute right of the Company except in extreme circumstances
demanding immediate attention. In this instance, the Company
had allowed a week to elapse after the incident before invoking
Section 12 of the Union/Company Agreement, action that he
considered to be flawed.
On the substantive issue of the suspension without pay, the Rights
Commissioner having found that he was not convinced that the Shop
Stewards had called a meeting, recommended as follows:-
"that the Company declares void the suspensions both with
pay and without pay and compensates the three Shop
Stewards appropriately in settlement of this dispute".
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the
18th of December, 1995. The Court heard the appeal on the 16th of
February, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is an agreement in place which allows the Company
to reduce its indirect ratio and the required notice
period had been given to the service personnel.
2. The Company did not sanction a meeting between the Shop
Stewards and the service workers during working hours.
3. The unofficial meeting resulted in a work stoppage and a
considerable financial loss was incurred by the Company.
4. Unofficial action causing financial loss to a Company
would, in many instances, result in the dismissal of the
offenders. In this case, the Company acted leniently by
merely imposing a one-week unpaid suspension.
5. The Company believes the Rights Commissioner erred
seriously in finding as follows:-
"I do not believe that suspension with pay is an
absolute right of the Company except in extreme
circumstances demanding immediate attention.".
It is the right of a Company to suspend employees with
pay pending investigation of any matter which it deems to
be serious. In this instance, the Company believes
a serious incident took place and, therefore, was within
its rights to administer a suspension with pay. This
action does not impose sanction on employees nor does it
tarnish or impugn them in any way.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When pressed by Union representatives, management
admitted to not knowing who actually called the meeting.
2. A number of service workers had received permission from
their supervisors to attend the meeting.
3. The Company did not incur any losses. The lines were
already down due to the fact that a "hot" wire was
missing, a matter that was brought to the attention of
one of the supervisors.
4. The shop stewards were present at the meeting to keep
order and to advise members that there were procedures
for dealing with their anger and frustration which arose
directly from the Company's imposition of change without
discussions.
5. The decision of the Personnel Manager to issue a letter
to the three Stewards on the 3rd of October in advance of
any investigation was unprecedented. Without fully
investigating the matter he came to certain conclusions.
This action cast a question mark over subsequent
procedures. In accordance with procedures, it is the
function of Personnel to hear appeals against
disciplinary action. The letters pre-judged the matter.
6. The Rights Commissioner correctly found that the Shop
Stewards had requested a meeting with management, a
meeting that did not take place, and that the gathering
of workers was an impromptu and spontaneous congregation
of service personnel seeking clarification of the
situation.
DECISION:
The Court has taken careful note of the written and oral
submissions made by both parties in this appeal against a
Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner. The Court was also
mindful of the difficulties encountered by the parties in the
recent past.
In the Court's view the Shop Stewards dealt with a situation which
spontaneously arose in the factory on the morning in question in a
manner which resulted in a return to work. Given the lead up to
the events of that morning it is understandable that the Company
may have misinterpreted the situation. It is also obvious that had
the requested official meeting taken place the incident could have
been avoided.
The Court wishes to record that it does not agree with the Rights
Commissioner's expressed view as to when suspension with pay may be
imposed. The Court accepts that such action is valid as a
preliminary step prior to an investigation and decision on any
action to be taken and in accordance with the Union/Company
agreement.
In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should be upheld. The Court
interprets the words 'appropriate compensation' as being
restoration of wages lost while suspended without pay.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the Company's appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
23rd February, 1996 -------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman