FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW216/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is employed at Our Lady's Hospital, Navan, Co. Meath as a craftsman's mate. He was disciplined and suspended by the Health Board for 5 days without pay for (a) failing to carry out a lawful instruction from his supervisor to complete grouting of tiling in the Regional Orthopaedic Unit and (b) verbally abusing his supervisor when questioned as to why he had not carried out his instructions.
The Union denies that the worker used abusive language towards his supervisor. It stated that on the day in question, i.e. 22nd March, 1995, the worker was requested to do a number of jobs in addition to other work already in hand. On the 23rd March, 1995, the supervisor inquired as to why the grouting had not been completed. The worker claims that he was unable to do the grouting because of his workload. A dispute arose between the worker and his supervisor over why the grouting work had not been completed.
A report was prepared by the supervisor in the matter and furnished to the Hospital's Assistant Administrator. As a result of the report the worker was suspended for one week without pay and was given a written warning as to his future conduct.
The worker appealed the suspension under an internal procedures agreement but the Personnel Officer upheld the decision.
The dispute was then referred to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 22nd September, 1995 and in his Recommendation CW216/95 recommended:-
"I recommend that the worker and the Union accept the Board's
decision in this instance."
The Union appealed the recommendation on the 23rd October, 1995. The Court heard the appeal on the 11th November, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not wilfully disobey an instruction. He completed a wide range of duties that particular day and had no time to complete the grouting.
2. The witnesses interviewed by the Health Board do not support the supervisor's allegations.
3. Any strong language used was not personally directed at the supervisor as claimed.
4. The worker has twenty-five years service with the Health Board. He is known as being obliging and helpful among his work colleagues.
5. The discipline imposed by the Health Board was excessive in this particular case.
HEALTH BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker failed to carry out a lawful instruction from his supervisor to complete a particular job of work.
2. He verbally abused his supervisor when asked why he had not completed the designated work.
3. The principal of natural justice was observed in this case. The worker was given the opportunity to state his case. He had Union representation and was also advised about the right of appeal.
4. Management has been very fair and impartial to the worker in carrying out its investigation into this dispute.
5. The Rights Commissioner concluded that management had carried out a fair and impartial investigation into this particular case.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds grounds have not been put forward to warrant amending the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
26th November, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.