FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. 812/98CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the refusal of a bin crew to lift refuse from a particular site in Clonskeagh, Co. Dublin, due to the contents, on occasion, of the garbage to be collected there. Due to their refusal to carry out instructions, on the 4th of November, 1998, the crew were the subject of disciplinary action comprising the deduction of 2 hours' pay and a final written warning, although no deductions have taken place yet, pending the outcome of this appeal. The dispute was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found as follows:
"I do not consider the action of the Council was unreasonable. I do not accept that the crew acted according to proper procedures and therefore, they put themselves at disciplinary risk. Serious disruption was caused and normal procedures were ignored. That is a serious matter. I am very reluctant to interfere in disciplinary matters unless an employer has taken an unreasonable or perverse decision. In these circumstances I consider that the Council decisions should stand.".
He recommended that the Union and crew accept the two-hour deduction and the issue of final warnings. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Court, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the 19th of April, 1999. The Court heard the appeal on the 15th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The appeal is on the basis that the bin crew in question have an excellent record over long years of service of up to 34 years.
2. The rubbish to be collected was in an obnoxious state and there have been similar incidents since as early as 1996. Despite an undertaking by the owners of the premises in question to have their rubbish meet certain hygiene standards and to have the obnoxious element of the rubbish collected by a private contractor, this arrangement was not complied with (details supplied to the Court).
3. The workers in question did not actually engage in unofficial industrial action but all went on a day's sick-leave.
4. Representations were made on many occasions in respect of the problem but the engineer-in-charge was not prepared to meet with the crew in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Instructions were issued to the refuse collectors that waste not complying with the arrangements concerning restaurant waste agreed with the customer in question should be left behind and the Supervisor informed as soon as possible. The matter would then be taken up with the customer by the engineering staff.
2. In this particular instance, two bags of restaurant waste were inadvertently included with normal waste. A week later the crew refused to lift any rubbish despite being given explicit instructions by their superior to do so. They also refused to work on the following day and this unofficial action caused further disruption to the refuse services. The individual crew members had already received a written warning for refusal to carry out instructions sometime previously and it was the 4th time in the year that they had caused serious disruption to the service.
3. The disciplinary action taken against the crew was due to the seriousness of their actions, the previous history of unofficial action by them and the fact that they had already received a written warning. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is reasonable in the circumstances.
DECISION:
There has clearly been an issue for sometime concerning the collection of waste from this particular location.
However, the issue before the Court is in relation to the disciplinary action taken against the crew as a result of their failure to complete the collection on the 4th of November, 1998.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, considers the disciplinary action taken by the Council was reasonable given the action taken by the crew on the 4th of November, 1998, and previous warnings on this matter.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th July, 1999.______________________
MK/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.