FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CROWN EQUIPMENT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company have been engaged in the manufacture of materials handling equipment at its Galway plant for approximately 40 years. There are 300 employees at the plant. Manufacturing employees in Galway plant are represented by the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union which has a comprehensive house agreement with the Company. The worker was employed by the Company for 7 years and was dismissed for failing to attend an informal meeting with his works manager on the 20th of April, 2001. The dismissed worker is a member of the AEEU and was represented by the Union throughout the process which resulted in his dismissal.
On the 20th of April, 2001, the worker was asked by his supervisor to attend an informal discussion in the Works Managers office regarding his absence from work and he refused. The Company issued a formal written instruction to the worker to attend a meeting with the works manager, explaining the purpose of the meeting and advising him that persistent refusal to attend could become a disciplinary matter. The worker refused to attend and was consequently advised that he was being "taken off the clock" until he agreed to comply. The Company wrote to the worker on three occasions requesting compliance with the Company instruction. On the 17th of May, 2001, the Company wrote to the worker and informed him that his continued refusal to attend the meeting would lead to a formal disciplinary hearing that might result in disciplinary measures up to and including his dismissal. A further meeting was arranged for with the Works Manager on the 21st of May, 2001, and the worker refused to attend.
On the 28th of May, 2001, the worker was informed by letter to attend a disciplinary hearing on the 6th of June, 2001. On the 6th of June, 2001, a disciplinary hearing was held. The worker was represented by his Union Official, AEEU convenor and shop stewart at the hearing. On the 8th of June, 2001, the worker was informed in writing by the Company that his employment was terminated.
The worker appealed his dismissal decision and in accordance with the plant agreement, an appeal hearing was held on the 12th of June, 2001, with the Managing Director. On the 13th of June, 2001, the Managing Director informed the worker in writing of his decision to uphold the dismissal decision.
- The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 19th of November, 2001. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of November, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 12th of December, 2001.
3. 1. The worker was denied access to procedures agreed between the Company and the Union. 2. The agreed procedures for dealing with poor attendance are clear and continue to have the support of the Union and the general workforce. 3. The refusal to attend an "informal friendly chat" should have been the subject of an immediate disciplinary hearing if the Company wished to act within the agreement. 4. The Company's insistence on attendance at the informal discussion is a departure from the plant agreement and custom and practice within the Galway plant. 5. The claim that the worker was guilty of gross misconduct as outlined in the plant agreement is absurd when judged against the list of headings it is associated with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's requirement to discuss work related matters with the worker was a reasonable and normal activity. 2. The instruction to attend the meeting with the works manager constituted a lawful instruction. 3. It was not unreasonable or without precedent for the Company to have a non-disciplinary discussion with an employee on a work related matter, in an effort to encourage improvement without the need to resort to disciplinary action.
4. The worker was given every opportunity and encouragement to comply with the instruction given by the Company.
5. The Company provided more than ample time for the worker to reconsider his position and did not act hastily in reaching the decision to dismiss.
6. On the 16th of November, 2001, at a meeting with the Company, the AEEU Regional Secretary stated that he had already told the workforce that they should attend for these informal meetings and that the shop stewarts will equally instruct their members that they must attend for these informal discussions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The employee involved in this dispute was given the opportunity to present his case but chose not to do so. It is also clear that the seriousness of his actions were made clear and that he had the opportunity to review his stance in light of the developing industrial relations scene in the Company.
While the Union has argued procedures were not followed, it would appear that the Union position at a stage during the dispute was that"the work force should attend these meetings and that the shop stewards will equally instruct their members that they must attend these informal discussions."
The point was made that individuals had complained about their treatment at the informal discussions but this was a matter for the Union to pursue with the Company.
The Court also took note of clause 1, page 14 of the Company/Union plant agreement stating that"should an employee find that any instruction is unfair or unreasonable he is still required to carry out such instruction but may avail of the Company grievance procedure to ensure that his point of view is given a fair hearing."
It is clear that this employee decided to take a particular approach in this case and despite the consequences refused to change his position.
While both sides argue whether or not the proper procedures were followed, it seems to the Court that the management request in the first place was not unreasonable, and was preferable to moving the issue into the formal disciplinary procedures as appears to be the Union preference.
Having considered all of the issues in this case, the Court finds that management's action, given the anarchy that could ensue if individuals were allowed to ignore reasonable requests, was reasonable.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Company's action in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd January, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.