Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95611 Case Number: AD9619 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH COUNTRY MEATS LIMITED (Represented by IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST67/95.
Recommendation:
It is clear to the Court that the dispute arose as a consequence
of the effects of the acute absenteeism. The Court considers that
this issue, which has a serious effect on the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the Company, should have been addressed more
positively and expeditiously. Had this been done, the necessity
to use management on the line would have been avoided.
Notwithstanding the above, there are recognised Industrial
Relations Procedures agreed between the parties to resolve
disputes without recourse to industrial action.
In this case, the actions of the employees to redress the
situation were contrary to those procedures.
Accordingly, the Court, given all of the circumstances, finds the
disciplinary action taken by the Company was not unreasonable.
It is the decision of the Court, therefore, that the appeal of the
Company be upheld and that the warnings should stand.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95611 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1996
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1969
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH COUNTRY MEATS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST67/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 465 workers in its 2 plants, namely the
Carrig plant (Irish Country Meats) and the Parkmore plant
(Roscrea Fresh Foods). The Carrig plant is involved in the
slaughter and processing of pork products, mainly for the
export market.
The dispute concerns a final written warning which was issued
to 2 workers who were involved in an unofficial stoppage for
3 hours on 11th November, 1994. There were 3 other
unofficial stoppages in the previous month, ranging in
duration from 10 minutes to one hour. The reason given for
the stoppages was because a Departmental Manager was working
on the line.
Following a meeting at local level, the 2 workers were issued
with the written warnings on 18th November, 1994. The Union
appealed the decision to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 12th September, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:
"I recommend that the Employer takes those steps which
are necessary to clear up the Absenteeism by the
application of the procedures in a fair and firm manner.
And that the Union advises its members concerned that
they must adhere to the agreed norms of attendance as
clearly the same members would not accept late coming or
failure to appear by their Branch Secretary when
servicing them, so why should their Employer accept less
from them? I further recommend that the Union and the
Company agree strict rules in relation to the physical
intervention of Line Management on the line which I find
to be so counter productive in this and many others. On
the substantive matter I recommend that the Written
Warnings be replaced by a formal counselling session
attended by the Claimants and their Branch Secretary."
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court
on the 24th October, 1995, in accordance with Section 13(9),
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 14th February, 1996, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1994, the Union raised the issue of management
performing work which was proper to Union members. The
Union was assured that the practice would not continue,
but it did.
2. One of the workers, who was a shop steward, stated at
the meeting with the Company that he had asked workers
to return to work on 11th November, 1994. Because his
credibility was undermined by management still working
on the line this did not happen. The Company was unfair
in issuing the warning to the second worker (who was not
a Union representative) when 56 other workers were also
involved in the stoppage.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 3 hour stoppage on 11 November, 1994, resulted in
the postponement of a shipment of pig meat to America,
at a cost of £2,000 to the Company. It also disrupted
work in the Parkmore plant.
2. The reason for management working on the line was due to
excessive absenteeism. The Company was left with no
choice but for management to occasionally work on the
line to ensure customer demands were met. The Union was
informed of the situation in a meeting in June, 1994.
The workers ignored the grievance procedure of the
Company/Union agreement by taking unofficial action.
DECISION:
It is clear to the Court that the dispute arose as a consequence
of the effects of the acute absenteeism. The Court considers that
this issue, which has a serious effect on the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the Company, should have been addressed more
positively and expeditiously. Had this been done, the necessity
to use management on the line would have been avoided.
Notwithstanding the above, there are recognised Industrial
Relations Procedures agreed between the parties to resolve
disputes without recourse to industrial action.
In this case, the actions of the employees to redress the
situation were contrary to those procedures.
Accordingly, the Court, given all of the circumstances, finds the
disciplinary action taken by the Company was not unreasonable.
It is the decision of the Court, therefore, that the appeal of the
Company be upheld and that the warnings should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman