FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CORPORATION (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the suspension of nine workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The nine workers concerned are employed in the Sanitary Services section of the Corporation. On the 20th June, 1997, the City suffered extensive flooding. Management instructed the workers concerned to carry out appropriate duties i.e., the cleaning of drains and the filling and distribution of sandbags etc. The workers refused on the grounds of serious concerns for their health and safety. These issues had previously been the subject of a dispute on the 6th of June, 1997 which resulted in a ten day stoppage. Following the stoppage on the 20th of June, the nine workers were suspended without pay from 2.00 p.m. on the 20th of June to finishing time on the 26th of June (4.5 working days). Following discussions between the parties, the Corporation outlined plans for long-term improvements to showers, changing areas and the employees returned to work. Subsequently the Unions submitted a claim for payment for the 4.5 days. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 9th of November, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th of January, 1998 A Court hearing was held in Limerick, on the 17th of February, 1998.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the years, on numerous occasions, the Unions made representations to Management relating to the workers' serious concerns about exposure to infection in the course of their duties. The stoppage on the 6th of June, 1997 occurred because of the workers frustration with the lack of progress on health and safety issues.
2. On the 20th of June, 1997, the workers did not refuse to fill sandbags. They did however, refuse to deliver them to flooded areas, because gullies and sewerage pipes had backed up and the workers felt they would again be exposed to the risk of infection, while having no proper shower and changing facilities to return to at the depot.
3. It is grossly unfair to suspend workers because of their genuine grievances and legitimate fears for their safety. Consequently they took the only course of action open to them.
4. The Corporation is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act in not specifying the amounts to be deducted from workers' pay.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the unofficial dispute on the 6th of June the parties agreed proposals which provided that staff would resume normal working on the 11th of June. They did not do so for another few days. The Unions made alternative proposals which were totally inconsistent with the workers' stated position on health and safety concerns.
2. The unofficial stoppage on the 20th of June was the second instance of this type of action. It occurred almost immediately after a set of employee relations procedures had been put in place (under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission) to provide for an orderly resolution of disputes.
3. During the course of negotiations the Corporation carried out minor improvements to shower facilities at the depot which met the requirements of the Health and Safety Authority and the Unions' Industrial Engineer. While it was agreed that further improvements would take place there was no justification for the workers refusal to carry out the legitimate instructions of Management.
4. The suspensions where lifted on the 26th of June, in order to allow a resumption of work. However, normal work did not resume until the 1st of July, 1997. The Corporation could have opted to suspend the workers for a further 1.5 days but chose to leave the suspension stand at 4.5 days.
5. The Corporation, at all times, sought to achieve a resolution of this dispute through peaceful means. This is evidenced by the fact that no sanction was imposed for the period 6th to 20th of June a.m. or 27th of June to 1st of July a.m. when no work was performed and the workers received full pay.
6. The workers' actions during the dispute left the Corporation with no option but to suspend them. The suspensions imposed were lenient, having regard to the time lost.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the action of the employees in question was in clear breach of the recently concluded Employee Relations Procedures, the object of which is to provide a basis for the orderly resolution of disputes and to avoid the type of disruption which arose in this case. The seriousness of the unofficial action taken was further exacerbated by the refusal to respond to the emergency situation then prevailing.
In those circumstances the Court considers that the disciplinary action taken by the Corporation was manifestly reasonable.
The Court notes that commendable efforts were made by both the Unions and management to resolve the dispute and restore normal working. It would urge both sides to continue progress in developing a commitment to co-operation in resolving matters of difference between management and employees by strict adherence to agreed procedures in resolving disputes.
The Court does not recommend any alteration in the disciplinary action taken by the Corporation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th February, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.