Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95623 Case Number: AD9617 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ATLAS ALUMINIUM LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. ST266/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties, finds that,
given all of the circumstances, the Company did not act
unreasonably.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95623 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1796
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ATLAS ALUMINIUM LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No.
ST266/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a final written warning issued to the
worker on 2nd May, 1995, for attending work whilst allegedly
being under the influence of alcohol. The incident occurred
on 26th April, 1995.
The worker was due to go on night shift at midnight on 25th
April, 1995. The previous evening, feeling unwell with a
head-cold, he had a hot whisky and went to bed to rest. The
worker claims that as a result of the head-cold he overslept
and did not arrive in work until 1.20 a.m. The gates to the
factory were locked, causing further delay. The worker was
employed in the foundry area at the time of the incident.
The worker claims that soon after arriving in work he asked
of his supervisor to be allowed to go home as he was feeling
unwell. At 2.25 a.m. the supervisor told the worker to go
home because, the supervisor claims, the worker was under the
influence of alcohol and not in a safe condition to work in
the foundry.
The Company investigated the incident and issued the final
written warning on 2nd May, 1995. The dispute was referred
to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on 13th
September, 1995. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
as follows:-
"I am not satisfied that the claimant was as culpable as
the Company Representatives claims. I therefore
recommend that the final written warning should be
struck from his record.
Instead I believe that the claimant should be formally
counselled by management in the presence of his Trade
Union Official in relation to (a) his attitude to
attendance and (b) to the dangers of coming to work with
any alcohol at all including that taken for alleged
medical reasons. And that this should be noted on his
personnel file for future reference if needed which
hopefully it will not be.
Finally I recommend that the Agreement be examined by
the parties in a progressive manner with a view to
eliminating any further anomalies found in it."
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court
on 2nd November, 1995 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 14th February, 1996, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had attended his doctor on 25th April, 1995
and was issued with a certificate declaring him unfit
for work until 30th April. The worker, however, decided
to attend work.
2. The worker requested of his supervisor to be allowed to
go home on a number of occasions before the supervisor
decided that he was under the influence of alcohol. The
worker does not deny that he had a hot whiskey (for
medicinal purposes) but does deny that it affected his
work. A number of workers who were present state that
the worker seemed unwell but was not intoxicated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the 2.15 a.m. tea break, the supervisor smelt a
strong smell of alcohol from the worker. He observed
that the worker was slurring his speech and talking
slower than normal. The safety officer expressed
concern at the worker's condition and felt that he could
be a danger to himself and others in the foundry.
2. The supervisor told the worker that he was under the
influence of alcohol. The worker did not deny this.
The Company cannot condone a worker being in such a
condition, particularly as he was working in a dangerous
environment. The Company has made every effort to make
conditions in the factory safe.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties, finds that,
given all of the circumstances, the Company did not act
unreasonably.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12 March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman