FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR3033/00/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns the Company's decision to demote a worker from his position as the "Post of Responsibility "on the seafood counter at the Ballinteer store. The post carries an additional payment of £50.31 (63.88 Euro) per week. The claimant also worked a number of hours overtime per week. He is employed by the Company at that store since 1997.
In August, 2000, the worker was called into a meeting with the store manager and requested to account for a number of delivery dockets which were missing during June and July, 2000. The worker indicated to Management that he had no recollection of the missing dockets. Further meetings were held in September and October, 2000 at which the worker reiterated that, despite having given the matter considerable thought, he could not account for the location of the missing dockets. In October, 2000, the Company demoted the worker. The Union claimed that the disciplinary action was too severe and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 9th of March, 2000, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"I am satisfied that the action was necessary in the circumstances. However, I feel that the total loss is very severe and I am recommending that he be reinstated from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. I also feel he should be re-deployed within the employment when a vacancy occurs."
Subsequently both parties appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Company's appeal was lodged on the 22nd of March, 2001 and the Union submitted its appeal on the 2nd of April. 2001. The Court heard the appeals on the 25th July, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement is well established and contains procedures to be followed during disciplinary proceedings. The Company acted contrary to these procedures by its decision to demote the worker.
2. The worker is the Number 2 on the seafood counter and is responsible to the Bacon Chargehand. His work is also checked by the Assistant Manager and Store Manager on a routine basis. The worker should not be held totally responsible for what is clearly an institutional rather than an individual problem.
3. If the worker is to be held in someway accountable, then there are various measures which could have been taken other than the decision to demote him, given the worker's clean personnel record.
4. The Company has a stated policy with regard to disciplinary action which emphasises its primary objective as being one to help the worker concerned.
5. The Union asks the Court to recommend that the worker be reinstated to his position on the seafood counter, with the appropriate rate of pay and full retrospection to apply to the date of his demotion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The safeguard system for goods inwards dockets is a weekly audit trail. This is a computer generated list of all goods inwards dockets received. The worker concerned was responsible for checking this document on a weekly basis. He was also responsible for the dockets and their subsequent loss. Their total value was £2,300 (2920.40 Euro). This issue was solely related to the worker's performance.
2. Given the seriousness of the incident, the Company lost confidence and trust in the worker's ability to carry out the job to the required standard. It had no alternative but to demote the worker. This was done to safeguard the business and the integrity of the system.
3. Management is fully satisfied that the worker is incapable of carrying out the duties of a Post of Responsibility at this time. It would be unfair to the worker to put him back in that position. The Company requests the Court to amend the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
Both sides have appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. Having considered the written and oral submissions, the Court notes that the company has confirmed that this case concerns the employee's failure to observe duty and care in relation to an administrative matter, and there is no implication of impropriety by the employee. There is no allegation of misconduct; rather this is a performance related issue.
The holder of a "post of responsibility" is obliged to do the audit trail; it is evident to the Court that the employee failed in his duty in that regard.
The Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's findings and recommends that, in parallel with the allowance being re-instated from the date of acceptance of this recommendation, if the Company decide that he is deficient in his responsibilities then he should be offered a refresher course and counselled on his duties. An alternative post of responsibility position within the Company generally should be offered to him as soon as a suitable vacancy arises.
The Court dismisses both appeals and upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st July, 2001______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.