FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Re-instatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the dismissal of a 2nd Engineering Officer who had been employed by the Company since April, 1978. The worker concerned was repairing a life boat engine on the 4th of January, 1999, with another employee, an Electrical Engineer, when he inadvertently released the wrong lever which dropped the lifeboat to the quay wall, causing considerable damage to the boat and injuring both employees.
Both workers were suspended on pay pending an internal investigation, following which the 2nd Engineer was dismissed and the Electrical Engineer received one month's suspension and a written warning, which was subsequently reduced on appeal. An appeal hearing which was held on the 21st of April, 1999, upheld the Company's decision to dismiss the 2nd Engineering Officer.
The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 1st of November, 1999. Agreement on re-instatement was not possible and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of November, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th of February, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had an undisputed impeccable record with the Company since 1978. He was absent on sick leave for only one week in that period. His performance was recognised by the Company in 1998 when he was awarded the maximum number of share options for his rank.
2. The worker co-operated fully with the Company's investigation in an honest and forth-right manner. The Department of the Marine, which also carried out an investigation, made particular reference to his honesty and openness, and have not proceeded further.
3. The worker has received no additional training on lifeboats since he was awarded his Lifeboat Certificate in 1984 on a manually operated lifeboat. It is accepted by safety authorities that these new lifeboats are the cause of major problems, including four fatalities in the recent past. The Company could have purchased a 22 minute video which is available to illustrate best safe practice in relation to release gear maintenance, but has not done so.
4. The Company's decision to dismiss the worker is unprecedented. The Union has given examples of other more serious incidents where the offenders were treated more leniently and no one was dismissed. In addition, this mistake involved two Engineering Officers working as a team, one of whose punishment was considerably less and was further reduced on appeal.
5. The worker was clearly not 100% fit and alert because of a number of medical and personal problems. In the interest of natural justice, the Company should re-instate him. His previous unblemished record of twenty one years clearly proves that his re-instatement would not jeopardise the safety of other crew or passengers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned is an experienced, qualified Engineering Officer. The repair on the lifeboat was routine and was well within his competency.
2. A lifeboat is an integral part of safety at sea and it is a fundamental responsibility of a ships engineer to be fully competent in all aspects of its maintenance. As an Officer he should have ensured that he was familiar with the equipment, by reference to the available manual, if necessary.
3. Clear instructions and warning signs are posted in the lifeboat. The worker's claim that the absence of his reading glasses prevented him from reading the signs is inexcusable. The instructions not to release the lever on the right side of the console were ignored and disregarded, causing the boat to fall a distance of 9 meters. It was fortunate that no-one was killed or seriously injured.
4. The worker embarked on a very time consuming, difficult and complicated procedure in order to, as he thought, release the correct lever and engage the engine in gear. He should have known that such complicated procedures could not have been normal in an emergency.
5. The safety of passengers and crew is of paramount importance to the Company. The worker displayed a totally unacceptable level of competence and negligence for a person of his rank. The Company cannot tolerate behaviour which put the safety of the vessel, her crew or passengers at risk and no longer has trust in his competence.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, is satisfied that the incident in which this employee was involved was extremely serious and could have had disastrous consequences. Both sides would appear to accept that this is the situation.
The Court, having considered this case in detail, is conscious of the requirement for safety procedures to be rigidly applied.
However, in this particular case, taking into account the claimant's work and service record, the Court is of the view that the punishment is too severe.
The Court recommends that the claimant be reinstated, and that his period of non employment be viewed as suspension without pay. The Court further recommends that the claimant be reduced in rank for 3 years to 3rd Engineer and this to be reviewed at the end of this period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd March, 2000______________________
D.G./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.