FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THERMO KING (EUROPE) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Threatened disciplinary action.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the proposed suspension of a shop steward for refusing to carry out an instruction from management.
In May, 1998, the Union became aware that management intended to re-introduce production documentation in the spot-welding and welding departments. The issue was raised at a conciliation conference (concerning a different matter) held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At the conference, the Union indicated that it did not have a problem with the documentation but felt that the matter should be discussed with the relevant shop stewards and supervisors/management. Subsequently the Company spoke separately to each of the shop stewards.
On the night of the 20th of May, 1998, management, on the understanding that it had agreement, advised the shop steward concerned to complete the documentation. He refused to complete the documentation and was suspended. Unofficial action was taken by 40 employees in protest at the suspension. Subsequently the shop steward agreed to complete the documentation and the suspension was lifted pending investigation.
The Company carried out an investigation without the co-operation of the shop steward or the Union and concluded that the worker was insubordinate in refusing to carry out a legitimate instruction. It imposed a suspension of 4 weeks without pay and a final written warning.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 18th of August, 1998 and the 29th of September, 1998. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of October, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of December, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the conciliation conference on the 14th of May, 1998, the Union explained its position. It did not have an objection to the documentation but wanted the shop stewards and the relevant supervisors/management to meet. The meeting was requested so that management's requirements could be explained and discussed.
2. Meetings took place on an individual basis but the request to meet collectively was steadfastly refused by management. This refusal placed considerable difficulty on the shop stewards. It is a long-standing principle of the Union committee that no individual member can overturn committee decisions.
3. This issue is between the Union and the Company and not an individual issue with the worker concerned. The shop steward was acting in accordance with the Union's instructions and in the circumstances the Union cannot accept any form of disciplinary action against the individual.
4. The Union is seeking that the worker's personnel record be expunged of all references in connection with this dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company would expect the Court to support the Company's position with respect to the proposed sanction for the following reasons:-
- the requirement to complete the required documentation is clearly outlined in the Company/Union agreement;
- the Company took reasonable steps to address the issues and concerns raised during the May 6th to May 20th period;
- at the conciliation hearing on May 14th, the Union clearly stated they "had no problem with thedocumentation";
- the employee in question did not comply with the supervisor's instruction, even though this employee was involved in the discussions regarding the documentation with the supervisor and attended the conciliation hearing where the Union stated "it has no problem with the documentation";
- the Union committee is not in a position to instruct its members not to comply with the house agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The background to this incident centres around the non-agreement to allow a meeting the shop stewards wanted, to take place.
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of each sides position, the incident before the Court is one of disciplinary action following an alleged refusal to carry out an instruction.
Having considered all the information supplied and taking into account the background at the time, the Court while accepting that the incident took place, finds the punishment too severe.
The Court also finds that the employee in question was experienced enough in Industrial Relations, to understand the seriousness of his position and that he took a decision not to undertake the work, rather than to do the work under protest.
The Court also finds that the decision not to participate in the investigation of the incident did not represent his best interest.
Having considered all the information before it, the Court recommends that the Company place a written warning on this employee's file, to remain until the 1st of March, 1999.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th December, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.