FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ORGANON TEKNIKA LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Dispute concerning disciplinary action taken against 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of medical diagnostic devices and employs 110 workers. The dispute concerns the decision of the Company to take disciplinary action against three process operators (including a shop steward) for an alleged unofficial work stoppage and a refusal to return to work. The incident occurred on the 14th November, 1997 and arose from a proposal by the Company to alter regular working arrangements during the manufacturing run of a proposed new product. Workers objected to the Company's action stating that there was a distinct lack of consultation with them on the proposed change and a group, including the three workers, approached Management to discuss the issue. A heated verbal exchange ensued and workers were requested to return to their duties. They refused and following a subsequent investigation by the Company two workers were issued with stage two written warnings and a final written warning was issued to the shop steward. The Union claimed that the three workers were treated unfairly. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation Conferences were held in May and June, 1998. Agreement could not be reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 22nd July, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 20th November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The normal practice in operation in the Plant provides that process operators rotate on a daily basis. However, they would work 2-3 days at a time in order to facilitate production requirements. When Management instructed a worker to operate the APV machine for a full week he stated that he did not have a problem with this provided that other operators were in agreement. The worker understood that a meeting about the roster would be held with all the operators, in November, 1997.
2. No meeting took place other than a verbal exchange between process operators and Management who refused point blank to discuss the issue with all operators. Workers perceived this action to be a breach of the Company/Union agreement. Subsequently, further discussions ended in confusion and disarray.
3. The normal working agreement with process operators provides for a maximum of 3 days at a time. At a meeting held in June, 1997, which discussed a proposal to increase working time on the APV machine no agreement was reached. Management's action in changing an agreed work pattern, clearly required a meeting with all process operators. This did not occur, Management's attempts to make changes, piecemeal fashion, led to confusion and accusations of an unofficial stoppage of work and subsequent disciplining of these three workers.
4. The Company's actions precipitated the problem which arose on the 4th November, 1997. Workers were treated in a most unfair manner. The imposition of disciplinary measures was unjust and unwarranted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. A serious work stoppage occurred driven by process operators at a critical time to the Company when it was attempting to re-enter the market with a new product. Management had explained the importance of the manufacturing run to the workers who would be involved in the manufacturing of this product before actual production began.
2. While the workers had raised some general concerns in the normal manner the Company had addressed these concerns immediately and posted a memo, available to all workers, clarifying the rationale behind the Company's actions.
3. Neither the Shop Steward nor the process operators directly involved in this team raised a grievance with the Company about the dedicated team being formed prior to the unofficial work stoppage.
4. Prior to the stoppage the Company offered the shop steward a meeting with Management to discuss any concerns. He refused the offer. The Company made several requests to the process operators to return to work. Management clarified to them that the Company was prepared to arrange a normal meeting if the process operators returned to work. They refused the offer as did their shop steward. The shop steward's behaviour during the stoppage was totally unacceptable (details supplied to the Court). The Company/Union agreement specifies that employees work under protest and process any grievance through procedures. He refused to work under protest or advise fellow workers to do so.
5. The Company investigated the matter in a fair and thorough manner. It came to a reasonable conclusion, and, based on the evidence available, took appropriate sanction for the three workers involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made in this case and in the interest of the good industrial relations which both sides agree has been the norm in this company, recommends that the parties accept the proposal put forward by the IRO as the most appropriate way of resolving this dispute. The Court notes and accepts that the warnings detailed in these proposals have expired.
These proposals should be accepted by both sides.
The Court wishes to emphasise the proposal made by the IRO that the Company and the Union should jointly confirm the following;
- the procedures to be followed in future by both parties in the event of any similar situation arising;
- the procedures for consultation where appropriate;
- the use of the grievance procedure;
- the appropriate level of Union representation.
Also the Court urges the parties to adhere to the procedures as laid down in the Company/Union agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th November, 1998.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.