FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIPPERARY CRYSTAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 950/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who is employed at the Company's plant near Carrick-on-Suir as an acid plant operator. It relates to a final written warning and a week's unpaid suspension. These sanctions were imposed on the worker by the Company following a verbal altercation which occurred between the worker and a member of Management (the Production Manager), in the plant on the 2nd of April, 1997. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 11th of April, 1998, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"In the circumstances, I recommend that the Union's appeal fails and that the disciplinary action imposed by the Company on the worker stands."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.)
On the 11th of May, 1998, the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held in Clonmel on the 9th of December, 1998. It was adjourned at the Company's request and with the agreement of the Union. The Court heard the appeal in Clonmel on the 18th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The discipline imposed by the Company on the worker was totally out of proportion to the seriousness of the incident which occurred on the 2nd of April, 1997. The worker should be paid in full for the week in question (i.e. commencing 16th of April, 1997) and the final written warning completely removed from his record.
2. The worker has been in the employment for the past seven years and has had a good employment record and received no written or verbal warnings. He is a shop steward and because of the various upheavals/changeovers in the Company since 1995 (receiverships/liquidation, short-time/lay-offs/redundancies) the worker's role at the plant is one of constant negotiation and key importance. He was an important figure in input negotiations in putting the Company/Union Agreement in place. Despite all these factors, there was no loss of production resulting from industrial conflict. In this context the sanctions imposed on the worker bore no relationship to the de facto situation on the 2nd of April, 1997.
3. The Production Manager and the worker had a good working relationship and there was informal and close contact on the shop floor on a daily basis. Such interaction occurred on the 2nd of April, 1997. It did not constitute a disciplinary or suspension without pay action. The worker met the Manager on the 10th of April, 1997, ironed out any misunderstanding and parted on excellent terms. These sanctions were totally inappropriate given the worker's general modus operandi, his discipline and industrial relations record. If management felt so strongly about the situation, a more humane, less hurtful discipline should have been put in place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Production Manager was accompanying a contractor on a tour of the plant on 2nd of April, 1997. The worker concerned approached him in the presence of the contractor, and began complaining about an alleged error on his wage calculation. The worker was told by the Production Manager that it was not an appropriate time and the matter could wait. However, the worker pressed the Production Manager on the issue and, dissatisfied with the response subjected the Production Manager to a torrent of foul abusive language. The incident occurred in the presence of the other workers and required the Production Manager to apologise to the guest for the embarrassment it had caused.
2. At the subsequent Company investigation the worker was given every opportunity to state his case and avail of all representation. He gave no satisfactory explanation for his behaviour and at a meeting on the 10th of April, 1997, apologised to the Production Manager for his behaviour on the day in question.
3. The Company was entirely justified in issuing the worker with the final written warning and a five day suspension. The worker acted in a most unacceptable manner and the Production Manager was shocked and taken aback by his behaviour. The incident was all the more serious in that it occurred in the presence of a visitor and other workers. The Company treated the worker in a manner consistent with natural justice and good industrial relations procedure.
4. The sanctions imposed were the minimum appropriate given the gravity of the incident in question. The Company requests the Court to uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all the information supplied and taking account of the employee's previous record is of the view that while disciplinary action was clearly warranted, the actual punishment, a final written warning and a week's unpaid suspension, did not match the offence.
The Court recommends that the final written warning be amended to a written warning and that £100 be paid back to the claimant
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal and rejects the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th June, 1999.______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.