FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ADM RINGASKIDDY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST328/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the imposition of a two day suspension without pay and a final written warning to a worker following an accident at work on 31st May, 1995. Following the accident in which the worker received an injury to his left arm/shoulder he was attended by the Company nurse on two occasions during the shift. The nurse found no evidence of bruising.
The Company claims that from the date of the accident until he resumed normal duties on 30th July, 1995 the worker's behaviour was unacceptable in that he was uncooperative, deliberately obstructive and misleading. The Union disputes the Company's claim.
The matter was referred to a Right Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 8th November, 1995 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the final written warning is reduced to a written warning
with a life of one year to the 1st November, 1996. I uphold the management
decision to suspend for the two days".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on 18th December 1995 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on 16th October, 1996 (the first available date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker reported his injury to the Company nurse at approximately 8.40 a.m. on 31st May, 1995. He resumed working but was obliged to return to the surgery at 2.30 p.m. due to pain in his shoulder.
2. The worker attended his doctor on 3rd June, 1995. He was allowed to resume work on light duties until further notice.
3. On 8th June, 1995 the worker was informed that light duties were no longer available to him. Subsequently on his return to work following a rest period of several days he was informed to work normally or go home.
4. The worker ws certified fit to resume work on 30th July, 1988. Company records show that he attended at work on that date.
5. The worker attempted to do everything possible to prevent further injury. In the circumstances he was harshly treated by management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not report any deterioration in his condition as instructed by his foreman. He also ignored the nurse's advice to report to the Company doctor on Thursday 1st June if he had a problem.
2. The worker refused to allow his doctor to submit an x-ray report to the Company doctor and refused permission for the Company doctor to speak to his doctor. He also refused to attend the Company doctor for examination.
3. It was management's opinion that the worker continued to work on "light duties" when in fact he was capable of carrying out his normal duties.
4. The worker's behaviour, when considered in the context of his overall record which includes being disciplined for refusing to carry out work instructions and for poor work performance, and a suspension for unauthorised absence and serious irregularities regarding the submission of a medical certification (which also involved misleading the Union and a Rights Commissioner), fully justifies a suspension and written warning
5. The worker's behaviour was totally unacceptable and showed a complete disregard for his contract of employment, normal procedures and his job. In the circumstances the penalty imposed was lenient and the Company respectfully requests the Court to endorse the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions rejects the appeal of the claimant and upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
11th November, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.