FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FOTA WILDLIFE PARK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Park since 1983, initially as a warden and more recently as a supervisor.The Union's case is as follows: On the 19th of January, 2001, the worker was approached by the Director of the Park who informed him that he was issuing him with a verbal warning for bad time keeping. The worker advised the Director that he would not accept the warning without having a Union Official or shop steward present. The Director issued the warning and the worker went to the main gates of the Park to protest. When the Union Official was informed he advised the worker to return to work and he did so.
At a meeting on the 24th of January, the Director again confirmed that there were problems with the worker's timekeeping and also with that of other employees. At disciplinary meetings on the 7th of February, the worker was informed that he was being issued with a final written warning. The Union referred the case to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:
"Accordingly , I recommend that the Union's appeal fails".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd of November, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of February, 2002, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union suggested at the meeting on the 24th of January, in an effort to resolve the issue, that all workers should be issued with a circular reminding them of the need for punctuality.
2. The worker did return to work as soon as he was advised to by the Union official.
3. The worker had gone to the main gate to protest as he was refused representation by the Director of the Park. This did not cause any disruption to the running of the Park.
4. Management issued a final written warning to the worker for something that was forced upon him.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was late on a number of occasions in January, 2001. He was in a position of responsibility and should have been giving example to other employees who were also late for work.
2. The worker took unofficial action, picketing outside the main gates and preventing a contractor from entering. He also attempted to get other wardens to support his action.
3. Management's action in issuing a verbal warning was reasonable. The worker's subsequent behaviour was deemed as gross misconduct, and the Employer was very restrained in its approach.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court does not see any reason to overturn the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, and accordingly dismisses the Union's appeal.
Therefore, the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th February, 2002______________________
CON/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.