FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAUSCH AND LOMB - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. The disciplinary suspension of 10 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. An agreement was reached between the Company and the Union concerning the operation of 3 machines instead of 2 in the spincast section, and this was being implemented on a phased basis. The dispute concerns an incident where 2 workers were sent home and were suspended for 3 days because they did not operate 3 machines. The 2 had been working scheduled overtime on the evening in question. The remaining staff of 8 subsequently walked off the job and were also suspended.
The Company claims that the two had been clearly instructed to operate 3 machines. The Union's position is that the 2 should not have been asked to operate 3 machines on overtime when some employees had not even commenced operating 3 machines during normal hours. The Union stated that the 2 were being penalised for having volunteered to be the first to operate 3 machines. Regarding the 8 colleagues who went home, the Union claims that the supervisor had advised them that, as they were on overtime, if they didn't want to stay, they could go home. The Union claims that the 8 believed they were being given a choice as to whether they would stay or go, and they opted to leave " in support" of their colleagues. The Company claims that the shop steward met with the supervisor, following discussions on the shop floor, and indicated that if the 2 were sent home, the other 8 would also leave. When they walked off the floor, they were suspended by the Company for "having engaged in unofficial action".
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of May, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in Waterford, on the 26th of June, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was the understanding of the 2 workers that, for the duration of the overtime shift, they would be operating 2 machines only. Workers were to become accustomed to operating 3 machines on their normal 8-hour shifts prior to the 1:3 being extended to overtime situations.
2. The 2 did not refuse to work 3 machines on overtime. It was their understanding when they came in to work that they were to operate two machines only.
3. On the following overtime shift, on Saturday, none of the operators was asked to operate 3 machines. Their supervisor informed them that they would be operating 2 machines only.
4. The 8 workers who were disciplined are adamant that they were given a choice by the supervisor to remain on the plant, or to leave.
5. All the operators are seeking the reversal of the written warnings and suspensions along with compensation. They all have exceptional records with the Company and did not report to work with the intention of disrupting production.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Agreement had been reached on the 1:3 ratio. The operators concerned were simply refusing to carry out a legitimate instruction and, therefore, subjected themselves to discipline under Clause 19(B) of the Company/Union Agreement (details supplied).
2. Those who walked out "in sympathy" were carrying out unofficial action and, accordingly, left the Company with no option but to implement the disciplinary procedure.
3. The Company operates in an extremely competitive environment. It is unacceptable that employees refuse to carry out instructions. The 3-day suspension for those involved is the minimum warranted in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written submissions made by the parties and to the additional extensive oral submissions made at the hearing. The Court has concluded that in, the circumstances, the Company had no option but to impose a penalty.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that the penalties imposed stand with the proviso that, because there was confusion in the workers' minds that night, the 3 day suspension is reduced to 2.
The Court notes that in the normal way the final warnings have now expired.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
24th July, 1996______________________
M.K./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.