FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. JUDES G.A.A. CLUB - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute concerning the issue of a written warning to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has fourteen years' service and is employed by the club as a bar manager in the Members' Lounge. Following an incident, concerning the placing of a bar stool by an official of the club at the counter hatch at the club bar on the 18th September, 2002, the worker left his bar duties in protest for approximately fifteen minutes before resuming his work. The worker took this action as he claimed that the area obstructed by the bar stool constituted a safety and health hazard. Following an investigation of the incident, the club issued a written warning to the worker. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated. On the 28th October, 2002, it referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20, (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 16th January, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The placing of the "do not obstruct counter hatch" sign on a bar stool and placing it at the entrance to the hatch was done by a club official as a 'prank'. However, the hatch was obstructed thus creating a safety hazard to the claimant and other staff. The obstruction was in contravention of the Health and Safety legislation.
2.The claimant protested by leaving his duties for approximately fifteen minutes and when the stool was removed he returned to the bar and served customers.
3. The official involved in the prank has held numerous posts of responsibility in the club and had attended meetings on issues such as health and safety. One issue raised on numerous occasions by staff was the obstruction of the hatch. The so called 'prank' was in very bad taste and showed no regard for workers' safety or the legislation there to protect them.
4.The club's investigation into the incident was flawed and biased, as two committee members had contradictory roles.(giving evidence to the investigating committee and assessing witness evidence).
5. In March, 2002 a second draft copy of a health and safety document was drawn up and is still not sanctioned by the executive committee.
6. The problems raised by staff in relation to the hatch were not taken seriously by the club.
7. The issue of the written warning and the manner in which it was dealt with was purely a cover up of a serious breach of The Fire Safety Act 1981 and the Health and Welfare at Work , Act, 1989. The Union seeks the withdrawal of the written warning.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker left his post without permission on the night of 18th September, 2002. The worker justified his leaving of the bar on health and safety grounds, he did not request his subordinate to leave the bar.
2. The club was satisfied that the stool was not an immediate threat to the worker or other employees' safety. He should have removed the stool and report the incident to the management committee.
3. The worker's reaction in leaving his place of work was a completely disproportionate response to the situation he was faced with.
4. The worker showed no regrets for his conduct and stated that he would do the same again in the future.
5.The worker is the paid official in the club who manages its commercial arm on behalf of the members. His position is one of responsibility and it is vital that the club has confidence in him to carry out his duties to the highest standards. This confidence was dented on the occasion of the 18th September. The club was left with no alternative but to take the action it did.
6. The committee dealt with the case as fairly as possible and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The penalty imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the worker's conduct.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and has taken full account of all the circumstances surrounding the incident which lead to the imposition of the disputed warning.
Whilst the claimant was wrong to leave the bar area, the incident which caused him to do so was inappropriate and provocative. This aspect of the matter was not given due weight by the club in dealing with the incident.
In the circumstances the Court does not consider that a disciplinary sanction against the claimant was called for or justified. Accordingly the Court recommends that the warning be withdrawn and expunged from the claimant's record.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd January, 2003______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.