FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CORPORATION - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.21/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is a fire-fighter with Dublin Fire Brigade and is currently attached to No. 4 Station (North Strand). On the 5th of May, 1995, he was ordered to go to Tara Street Station to provide cover as he was the surplus fire-fighter in North Strand. This is common practice where one station has extra staff. He worked in Tara Street on the 5th,6th & 7th of May, was on leave for the 8th/9th of May and reported back to North Strand on the 10th of May. He was told by the acting district officer in North Strand that he should have reported back to Tara Street. The worker refused to return to Tara Street and was informed that he would be charged under the disciplinary code.
The worker attended a disciplinary hearing on the 11th May, which was also attended by the Union. At the hearing, the worker was issued with a reprimand. Following an appeal hearing on the 24th of June, 1996, the reprimand was changed to a warning. The Union appealed the decision to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation is as follows:
"In those circumstances, I am of the view that the subsequent appeal dealt fairly and reasonably with the case and I therefore recommend that the worker's claim for a total mitigation of the warning fails".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 24th of June, 1997, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The disciplinary procedure followed by the Company was unfair. The worker did not receive a formal charge sheet. By reporting back to North Strand after his shift in Tara Street he was following normal procedures. The worker appears to have been singled out and treated differently to other firefighters. Another fire-fighter who returned from Tara Street to his own station (No. 8) on the same morning (May 10th) had no problems.
2. The officer in charge in Tara Street told the worker to return to North Strand on the 10th May. This is not disputed by the Corporation. There is an agreed protocol agreement between the Union and management for dealing with issues in the Dublin Fire Brigade which management has ignored in this instance.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker refused to obey an order. He could have obeyed the order under protest but chose not to do so. The Fire Brigade provides an emergency service and it is essential that discipline is maintained. A warning is the minimum penalty that could have been imposed in the circumstances. The warning does not appear on the worker's record.
DECISION:
The Court notes that, since this incident, the parties have agreed a Protocol Agreement to deal with incidents of this nature. The Court is also conscious that the warning is not a matter of record and will not be used against the claimant at a time in the future.
Given these circumstances, the Court rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
30th September, 1997______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.