FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR1447/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a general operative and engaged in unofficial action for a period of one hour on the 18th May 2000. As a result of this action the Company issued him with a final written warning on the 23rd May .The Union maintain that the final written warning imposed on the worker was too severe in the circumstances. They sought a non-recorded verbal warning as appropriate to the circumstances. The Company refuted that the discipline was inappropriate. They contended that the workers action was totally out of order in that he had disrupted the Company by causing a temporary close down. They stated that such action was contrary to all agreed procedures and could jeopardise other employees.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd of September, 2000, the Rights Commissioner recommended:-
I recommend that Mr. Fitzgerald accepts the Company decision in this dispute.
On the 29th of September, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the Court heard the appeal on the 11th of January, 2001
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker contends that the action of a final written warning proposed by the Company singles him out by inflicting an extremely harsh and severe punishment in contrast to the treatment of others engaged in similar actions.
2. The worker has an otherwise good record and many good years of service with the Company. A final written warning would be inappropriate extreme action for this one offence and a lesser disciplinary warning should be considered.
3. The Company policy does not specify a final written warning for such action - it states "serious disciplinary action". A written warning fulfils this criteria.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1996, the Company, with one exception has proposed written rather than Final Written Warnings for unofficial industrial action. This was to allow for mitigating circumstances - however there are no mitigating circumstances in this case.
2. The Company fully explained the very serious consequences of unofficial industrial action to the representatives. It has sufficient procedures in place to ensure that any grievance is dealt with adequately. There is no basis for unofficial industrial action to take place. It is essential that it is clearly understood that it will not be tolerated.
3. The Company cannot accept that people stop the Plant to make a point in this manner. The whole purpose of Procedures is to ensure that people with a point to make get a fair hearing without resorting to such action.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the disciplinary sanction imposed in this case was reasonable in all the circumstances. However, provided that there is no repeat of the type of misconduct which led to the disciplinary action, the final warning should expire 18 months from the date on which it was imposed. With this modification the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is upheld.
The Union's appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd January, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.