FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disciplinary procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed with Networking Catering since October, 1997, operating as host on Iarnrod Eireann's Citygold service between Cork and Dublin.
The dispute concerns the Union's challenge to the outcome of a disciplinery process covering a number of matters. In December, 2000 the worker was issued with a disciplinary advice (A Form) by the On Board Services Manager. The A Form referred to the following matters.
1. Failure to report for rostered duty;
2. Failure to carry out instructions of authorised person;
3. Unsatisfactory work performance;
4. Abusive and threatening behaviour towards staff members;
5. Gross Insubordination to a Line Manager;
The disciplinary matters which were dealt with through the agreed procedure included a disclipinary hearing, an appeal hearing, and an Ad Misericordiam appeal. At the disciplinary hearing matters 1, 2, 4, and 5 were deemed to be proven. On foot of this finding the disciplinary sanction was determined as dismissal from the Company's service.
Following the appeal hearing agreement was reached between the parties on the redeployment of the worker to the delph store in Heuston Station but the worker rejected the offer. Subsquently he was advised of the dismissal decision and he requested an Ad Misercordiam appeal.
Following the Ad Misercordiam appeal the dismissal decision was upheld. Further discussions took place at which the Union claimed that the dismissal had not been properly confirmed and therefore, the Ad Misercordiam appeal should not have arisen. The Union argued that the only sanction applicable was one of redeployment. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the 26th of April, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of June, 2001. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has carried out his duties in an efficient manner in accordance with the rules set down by the Company in relation to Iarnrod �ireann's Citygold service.
2. Other staff members who have reported late for duty have not been issued with the disciplinery advice (A Form).
3. The Company's handling of the of the disciplinary advice issue was unsatisfactory.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The disciplinary matters were dealt with through the agreed Disciplinary Procedure.
2. Agreement was reached on the redeployment of the worker to the delph store in Heuston Station. The worker rejected the redeployment on the basis that he was not happy with the job specification.
3. Network Catering Management applied procedure and despite confidence in the initial decision demonstrated a willingness to compromise. The compromise offered the worker employment as an alternative to dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Taking into account all of the issues involved the Court recommends that the claimant accepts the Company proposal to redeploy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
16th July, 2001______________________
MO'C/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.