FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEBA KNITS LIMITED - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Dispute concerning suspensions.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1997, the Company was approached by a number of workers who requested a rearrangement of working time at Christmas, 1997 so that an extra day (31st December) could be taken off at Christmas in order to have a continuous break between Christmas and New Year. The Company agreed to the request provided that the time was worked up by all employees in advance. Subsequently difficulties arose between the Company and a number of workers in relation to the best way to organise the work to suit the employees. Six workers took exception to Management's proposals and refused to co-operate with the Company on this issue. The Company then informed the Union that it intended to suspend the six workers for one week commencing on the 1st January, 1998. The suspensions were not implemented pending the referral of the issue through procedures. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 17th of February, 1998. Agreement could not be reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th of March, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 21st of April, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Union first met Management in early November, 1997, to discuss the possibility of employees working up time, it was agreed that shop stewards would become involved in the organisation of the best method to work up the hours. It was agreed that the working up of this time would be voluntary during November. If time was not worked up by November the Company would schedule this extra time in December. When shop stewards tried to ascertain the most suitable way of doing this work they were presented with various combinations from the workforce. The manner in which Management handled the organisation of the extra work in a more formal manner left a lot to be desired. A shop steward was ridiculed in front of colleagues and the six workers refused to co-operate with the Company. However, their actions could not be construed as gross misconduct.
2. The Company did not adhere to its own agreed procedures for the processing of the issue through third parties. The six workers are long service employees. They were not issued with verbal warnings, first written warnings and final written warnings as per Section 12 of the agreed disciplinary procedure. There is no provision in the disciplinary procedure for suspension. It is only mentioned in Section 5 under the dismissal procedure.
3. There is a very poor industrial relations atmosphere in the Company at present and problems can only be dealt with every Wednesday when the Senior Manager is in attendance to represent the Company. This situation is unsatisfactory and has contributed significantly to the present situation. The Company acted in an improper manner in trying to enforce suspensions. The Union would also welcome the involvement of the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All workers knew from the outset that they were required to work up the time for the 31st December. When the supervisor of the main production section tried to arrange the hours to be worked up, the employees concerned stated that they would not work up any time.
2. The Company did its utmost to try to get the six workers who were refusing to work up the time to do so and a number of meetings were held to try to resolve the issue, without success. When the shop steward was informed that the rearrangement would have to be cancelled if no agreement was reached, she stated that she would not, in any case, come in on 31st December, even if it was to remain a work day.
3. The rearrangement of working time was done at the request of employees and was clearly the wish of the vast majority of employees who worked up the time. It is normal in these circumstances to expect all employees to work the rearranged hours. The Company was justified in its action in view of the refusal of the six employees to work up the time.
4. While the issue in dispute relates solely to suspensions, management must point out that a larger issue exists for the Company, whereby a small number of workers are causing serious problems, by resisting normal management requirements and adding to the already serious financial position of the business.
5. If the Company is not seen to take firm disciplinary action in this case it would make it impossible to agree to any reasonable request from employees in the future. In the circumstances, the Company's decision to impose disciplinary action was fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the issue which forms the subject matter of this investigation is symptomatic of a much deeper industrial relations problem within the Company. This was previously alluded to by the Court which recommended that the parties should consider requesting the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission to assist them in seeking to address this underlying problem. Regrettably, the parties did not act on that recommendation. The Court would, however, reiterate the advice previously given and again urge the parties to act on it as a matter of urgency.
With regard to the issue now before it, the Court cannot condone the stance taken by the employees concerned in refusing to work up the hours, having previously agreed to do so. In the circumstances the Company are entitled to deal with the matter within the terms of its disciplinary procedure. However, the imposition of a suspension is not appropriate in this case and the Court recommends that this be reduced to a first written warning in each case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th April, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.