LCR15363

SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair suspension.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns a driver who is based at the Dundalk depot. As a result of two incidents which occurred on the 7th April, and 11th November, 1994 the worker received periods of suspension following an investigation carried out in accordance with the Company's disciplinary procedures under which complaints may be appealed to the Company/Union Appeals Board. The first incident related to a traffic accident at Collins Avenue on the Belfast Road junction. The second related to a charge of being abusive and aggressive to a passenger and refusing an instruction from an Inspector (specific details supplied to the Court).

The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim. The Union sought to refer the issue to a Rights commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to such an investigation. On the 18th June, 1996 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 23rd October, 1996.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

INCIDENT 1:

3. 1. Since the disciplinary hearing the Union has inspected and photographed the slip road/junction in question. It is clear there was no signpost prohibiting a right hand turn and also that there was ample room for the driver to effect a right turn successfully, which he did. In the Union's view it is impossible for a car to insert itself beside the bus on this road without partially being on the footpath. Because of the



format of the appeals procedure this evidence was not available on the day of the hearing. Consequently the driver has been unfairly treated.

INCIDENT 2:

1. The driver was the subject of unwarranted abuse from a passenger in front of other passengers on the bus. Under Bus Law the driver is entitled to refuse to carry such a passenger and he was within his rights to do so.

2. The driver accepts that his refusal to carry out the Inspector's instruction is serious. However, it is the incidents which occurred before the Inspector's intervention which contain the degree of unfairness in this issue. There was a conflict of opinion as to what happened. The Inspector should have backed the driver and not endorse a passenger's rude treatment of him.

3. The driver has a very good employment record since 1987, which has shown no evidence of abuse to passengers. The worker has been unfairly penalised for attempting to uphold the law.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The cases involving the driver concerned were dealt with through the disciplinary procedures which have been agreed with the Union. These procedures are recognised by all concerned as being fair and self contained. Accordingly, there is no provision for the referral of cases to a third party.

2. The Company has at all times accepted the results of the disciplinary procedures machinery including cases where the Company's Managers' decisions have been altered or rescinded by the Board. The worker exhausted the full provisions of the agreed procedures and the District Manager's penalties in both cases were considerably reduced.

3. The Court has, on previous occasions, fully supported the fairness and the outcome of the agreed disciplinary procedures (LCR 14685, 14707 refer).



RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions and makes the following recommendations:

1.Incident 7 April, 1994:

In the light of the evidence put forward to the Court which was not before the Appeals Board it is recommended that this matter should be referred back to the Appeals Board for their consideration.



2.Incident 11 November, 1994:

Given all the circumstances relating to this incident the Court finds that the disciplinary action taken by the Company was not unreasonable.

With regard to the issues raised in respect of the procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters the Court notes these procedures are the subject of review at this time. Accordingly the Court will make no comments at this time save to exhort the parties to seek to agree as soon as possible arrangements which will eliminate any anomalies which exist.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Tom McGrath
26th November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.