FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEVCON LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST 74/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures adhesives, surface coatings and metal treatment products and employs 40 workers at Shannon. The appeal relates to disciplinary action which was taken by the Company against two workers following incidents which occurred at the Company's Christmas party in a local hotel in December, 1995 (details to the Court). The Company issued written warnings to the two workers. The Union claimed that they were unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 7th June, 1996 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the final written warnings lapse after 31st August, 1996".
On the 25th June, 1996, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Limerick on the 9th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner erred in accepting the Company's allegations, without evidence being produced, that the two workers concerned were deliberately provocative or acted in a threatening manner to other workers.
2. The Union accepts that there was a boisterous atmosphere at the hotel due to alcohol being consumed and that events may have got a little out of hand and unruly. There was no basis, however, for singling out the two claimants.
3. Given the circumstances, that it was a holiday period, the events which occurred were neither on company time nor on company premises and as such not connected with the employment, it is inappropriate to resort to "in house" disciplinary procedure.
4. The two workers were frank and honest when interviewed. Management's style and tone of interview varied, with some it was easy and friendly, with the claimants it was harsh and aggressive. The workers are not prepared to accept responsibility for incidents for which they were not personally responsible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the incidents at the Company's social function a series of interviews were held with 9 workers individually who were on the hotel premises on 21st December, 1995. A number of workers admitted involvement in unacceptable behaviour and expressed regret. Their apologies were accepted by the Company. The two workers (who were involved and party to the acts of unacceptable conduct) did not submit satisfactory explanations and did not apologise.
2. The Company is completely satisfied that both workers were involved in the incidents which occurred. The events of 21st December, were a source of major embarrassment to the Company. Management is seriously considering whether it will continue with the practice of having a Christmas party night out in future.
3. The Company was justified in issuing the written warnings. The 2 workers played leading roles in the disruptive and unacceptable behaviour which took place. They were afforded ample opportunity to respond to the allegations made. Neither offered an apology. The Rights Commissioner supported the Company's decision to issue final warnings. The Company requests that this decision be upheld.
DECISION:
Having heard the evidence of the parties involved as to the events on the night of the Christmas party 1995 and having listened carefully to the statements made by the persons concerned at the hearing by the Court ten months after the occurrence, the Court rejects the appeal of the Union.
However, to avoid confusion as to the date on which the final written warnings lapse, that date should be 31st December 1996.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
1st November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.