FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH BISCUITS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC28/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1993 a comprehensive agreement on change within the Company was made between the Company and the Union. A roster arrangement came into existence as a result of the agreement within the Hygiene Department of the Company. The "Boxwash" operation is covered by this agreement.
2. On the 23rd October, 1995 a worker was rostered to work in the Boxwash Plant. He was subsequently requested by management to transfer to other duties which he refused to do. As a result he was suspended from duty without pay for that particular day. The worker concerned refused Union representation at the time.
3. The Union claims that the worker should not have been suspended as he did not refuse to work, but carried on doing the job he had been rostered to do. Furthermore, the Company should have insisted on the worker having Union representation before he was suspended.
4. The Company claims that the worker was given ample opportunity to consider his position and was advised that if he persisted with his refusal to change duties that he would be suspended without pay. The worker continued to refuse to perform the duties as specified by management and was accordingly suspended from duty without pay for that day. He was also advised, at all stages, of his right to Union representation but which he declined.
5. Both sides agreed to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 4th March, 1996 and recommended as follows:-
"In the light of the above I must conclude that the
employer's position should be upheld and I recommend
accordingly."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
6. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 13th May, 1996. The Court heard the appeal on the 23rd August, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not refuse to work. He carried on his job which he was rostered to do that day which was in line with the 1993 Agreement.
2. The decision to suspend the worker without pay was unreasonable as he had already worked a half day for which he subsequently was not paid for.
3. The Company did not adhere to normal procedures as the worker was suspended without the presence of a Shop Steward.
4. The worker believes that the 1993 Agreement is being misused by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker would not have suffered any financial loss by transferring to other duties as requested by management
2. Management has the right to re-allocate those rostered on a priority of work basis.
3. The worker was advised at all times of his right to Union representation but declined to avail of it.
4. The worker was given every opportunity to consider the consequences of his refusal to transfer to other duties and his subsequent one day's suspension without pay.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the parties in oral and written submissions does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant amendment of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
Accordingly the Court upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
4th September, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.