FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SECURICOR SECURITY SERVICES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 908/97CW concerning the removal of two workers from a cash-in-transit run.
BACKGROUND:
2. The two workers concerned were issued with a final written warning and removed from their regular run (run no. 3) as a consequence of breaches of discipline alleged to have occurred while they engaged on a cash-in-transit run (CIT) on the 7th of August, 1997. The disciplinary measures were unsuccessfully appealed through Securicor's internal disciplinary procedures and subsequently referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
At the Rights Commissioner hearing on the 8th of September, 1998 an arrangement was arrived at which provided for the final written warning to be reduced to a written warning and for the Company to review its decision (after the 17th of November, 1997) to remove the workers from run no. 3. The arrangement also provided for the Union to refer to a future hearing any unresolved issues. In November, 1998 the Union referred the issue of lost earnings back to the Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"Loss of earnings arising from disciplinary action is a well
established fact, e.g., suspension without pay, loss of
overtime, etc. This dispute has now been going on for far
too long. Delays in finalising it cannot necessarily be ascribed
to anyone in particular. I have noted the Union assessment of
loss. The loss of lunch payments cannot be considered for
compensation. Such net payments are meant to be in respect
of expenses necessarily incurred. They are not to be
considered as earnings. I believe that a modest payment is
appropriate to each worker.
I recommend that the Company offers and the workers accept
the sum of £400 each in full and final settlement of this dispute."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on the 11th of February, 1999 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 16th of April, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were sufficiently punished for the alleged breaches of discipline by their removal from run no. 3 for the period up to the 17th of November, 1997 and the issuing of written warnings.
2. An undertaking by the Company, as a consequence of the Rights Commissioner hearing on the 8th of September, 1997, to place both employees on alternative runs which would have yielded them similar hours and allowances to run no. 3 was not implemented until December, 1998.
3. By failing to carry out the review, the Company imposed a double punishment on the workers for the same alleged transgression. This is unreasonable, unfair and unprecedented in Securicor's disciplinary practice.
4. The award made by the Rights Commissioner was insufficient having regard to the loss incurred by both employees resulting from the Company's failure to fulfil the terms of the September, 1997 arrangement. Accordingly the Court is requested to overrule the Rights Commissioner's decision and to recommend that both employees be paid the full amount of their loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. CIT crews do not have any guarantees on "runs" or overtime earnings.
2. The individuals suffered loss as a result of poor performance and subsequent disciplinary action.
3. Compensation cannot be merited where loss arises from justified disciplinary action. Any guarantee of earnings in disciplinary cases would serve to undermine disciplinary action.
4. Lunch allowances should not be included in this claim as such allowances are only paid where crews suffer the inconvenience of being away from base all day. The workers were taken off the country runs for disciplinary reasons and as a consequence did not suffer this inconvenience.
5. One of the workers concerned left the Company and at the time of his departure had not accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, the Company believes he should not be considered in this appeal.
5. In the case of the other worker, the Company believes that the compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner is appropriate and respectfully requests the Court to uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation in this case.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th April, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.