FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTHBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. RC990/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns disciplinary action imposed by the Company on an employee who refused to carry out work assigned to him. In August, 1997, an entire order was rejected and was returned to the company to be re-worked. On the 12th of August, 1997, the worker concerned refused to put a final finish on the re-work which had been done by part-time staff. He was requested to work under protest until a shop steward was located but declined to do so. Another employee, who had initially refused to carry out the work, agreed to work under protest. On the 14th of August, 1997, the worker was issued with a final written warning and was suspended for 2 days without pay.
The Union appealed the disciplinary action to a Rights Commissioner who heard the appeal on the 16th of December, 1997. Her recommendation issued on the 13th of January, 1998, as follows:-
"1. That disciplinary action against (the worker) be reduced to a two day suspension and that the written warning be removed from his file and that his record is restored to that which existed prior to 12th August, 1997. This assumes that (the worker) will continue to work as required pending the implementation of the second part of this recommendation.
2. That the Company and Unionjointlyrefer the issues raised by the material safety data sheet to the safety committee forurgentconsideration. Recommendation should be requested from that committee within four weeks and any recommendations from the committee should be implemented within a further four weeks, at the latest."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 13th of May, 1998, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Normally the Union would expect and encourage a worker to work under protest where work is in dispute. However, as the worker raised concerns of a health and safety nature, working under protest should not have been insisted upon and, therefore, disciplinary action was not justified.
2. The worker has previously suffered from a skin irritation when carrying out the work in question and he notified his supervisors at the time (letters supplied to the Court). The worker always wears the protective clothing supplied by the Company. However, the Company did not provide the barrier cream as recommended on the 'Material Safety Data Sheet' until the 19th of February, 1998.
3. The worker's record of employment is exemplary and there have been no difficulties since this issue arose. The worker has accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and has not appealed it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned is an experienced employee and was aware of the serious pressures that the Company was under at the time to re-work the rejected order. He repeatedly refused to work, even under protest, until a shop steward reported for duty. His refusal to work ultimately brought the production line to a stop.
2. The worker's initial concern was that he did not want to check out work that others had started. However, it was impressed on him that he was responsible for his own work only and that the chargehand had final responsibility for inspection.
3. The worker raised the issue of health and safety approximately two to two and a half hours after his initial refusal to work and after he had been told that he may be dismissed for his actions. He had carried out this type of work previously and neither the safety committee nor his management team have a record of a formal complaint being made by him.
4. Given the seriousness of the worker's actions, the Company considered dismissal. However, taking into account all of the arguments raised by the Union, it considers that two days' suspension with a final written warning is the most appropriate action.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions and the new evidence presented, the Court has concluded that a fair resolution to the Company's appeal is to reduce the final written warning to a written warning. This warning to have a lifespan of three months from the date of issue.
The suspension to remain in place.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
8th June, 1998______________________
D.G./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.