FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CORPORATION - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY T. COLLINS AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair suspension and demotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed as an Acting Assistant Inspector at one of the Corporation's cleansing depots. On the 6th June, 1997 an incident occurred involving a brief altercation between the worker concerned and a junior member of staff. Following an investigation the Senior Engineer in charge of the Roads Maintenance Section recommended that the worker be placed on six weeks special leave without pay, demoted to Overseer Grade I, transferred to another depot and that he be given a final warning. A subsequent disciplinary hearing imposed the following penalty:
(i) three weeks' of the special leave would be regarded as annual leave, four weeks' leave without pay to be taken over the next 12 months,
(ii) that the worker be demoted to Overseer Grade I and banned from applying for promotion for a 12 month period,
(iii) a final written warning issued to remain in force for 2 years, and that he be transferred to another depot.
At a further appeal hearing the Corporation reduced the period from which the worker would be banned from promotion to 6 months and the duration of the final warning was reduced from 2 years to 6 months.
The worker claimed that he was unfairly treated and on the 24th of September, 1997 referred a complaint to the Labour Court, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 27th of October, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been in the Corporation's employment for the past 19 years. He is a willing, hardworking employee with an excellent employment record.
2. The worker was involved in a very minor incident for which he accepted responsibility. The worker responded on the spur of the moment, totally out of character and under severe provocation. However, the punishment meted out to him was very severe, unjustifiable and far exceeds the appropriate punishment.
3. The worker was not given a copy of the complaint, nor allowed to challenge the complainant about the incident. He should have been allowed to call witnesses on his behalf and allowed cross-examine any witnesses whom the Corporation called on and relied on.
4. The manner in which the claimant was treated has had an adverse impact on his health resulting on his being on sick-leave since the incident. He feels let down by his employer.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation has always adopted a policy that an assault by any worker on another employee is a dismissal offence. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Corporation refrain from implementing a dismissal procedure.
2. Management considered all the circumstances of the case in reaching its decision, and took into account the claimant's excellent record and service.
3. However, the claimant was acting in a senior supervisory capacity at depot level and there are no circumstances in which his actions can be condoned or completely exonerated.
4. The Corporation has shown as much sympathy to the worker's predicament as is reasonable. It cannot condone, in any circumstances, the use of physical violence on a work site. The worker accepts this principle. He must therefore accept the consequence of his actions. The Corporation treated the worker in a fair and just manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, finds no grounds have been put forward to amend the decision of the Corporation.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal of the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
5th November, 1997______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.