FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against one week's suspension.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with Bus Eireann 1997 as a driver based in Galway. He requested a transfer to Athlone in October 2001. He was informed by the Services Manager that he owed the Company £60.20 (€76.44) in cash-in shortages. This amount was to be paid before transferring to Athlone. The worker denied responsibility for these shortages. Bus Eireann imposed a penalty of one week's suspension without pay and continued to insist on the full payment of £60.20 (€76.44). The Worker appealed this decision. An appeal was heard in May 2002. At that hearing the Appeals Board made a decision to request further information from management. The Appeals Board considered the appeal again on 20th December 2002. Their final decision is as follows:-
"The Appeals Board decided that the worker must pay over the sum of £60 (€76.44) to the Area Manager, Athlone not later than 9th January 2003 and that the penalty of one week's suspension be reduced to two days suspension".
(The worker was named in the Appeals Board's decision)
The Union on behalf of the worker appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Board to the Labour Court on the 22nd January, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th April, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 2nd October, 2001 the worker was informed by the Services Manager that he owed the Company £60.20 ( €76.44) in cash-in shortages. The worker denied responsibility for these shortages and asked to be shown waybills pertaining to these shortages. The worker has a policy since 1998 of double checking any shortages presented to him for payment, as mistakes have been made in the past. He has been billed incorrectly for an amount already paid and for shortages of another driver.
2. The waybill of the 30th June, 2001 does not show any shortage nor does it identify where the shortage is supposed to have arisen, i.e. notes or coins. An example of a waybill of 28th June, 2001 where a £10.00 (€12.70) shortage can clearly be shown was submitted to the Court.
3. The appeal is on the grounds that the worker claims that he did not owe the Company £60.20(€76.44) and therefore should never have been instructed to pay this sum. As a consequence, there is no liability against him for this sum, and the suspension is clearly unjustified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. In 2000 the Wayfarer Ticketing System was introduced, each driver in the Company uses an electronic ticketing machine while operating a service. Receipts from fares collected are deposited in the depot each day on completion of work. Any pay-in shortages are advised to the driver and he is required to pay any outstanding amounts due.
2. The worker (driver) concerned had a cash shortage of £60.20 (€76.44) which occurred on 6th October, 2001 in the Galway depot. He was advised by the Area Manager on the 8th October 2001 of his misdemeanour and the incident would be dealt with in accordance with the agreed Disciplinary Procedures.
3. The disciplinary matter was exhaustively examined and investigated by the Area Manager, Galway and by the Appeals Board, having been the subject of two hearings. A final decision by the Appeals Board was made on the 20th December, 2002.
4. Part payment of €30 was made by the worker on 14th January 2003 and that date was recorded as one of the two days suspension . The Company are requesting that the decision of the Appeals Board stand and that the worker reimburse the balance of the amount due and to serve the outstanding day's suspension.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court cannot accept the claimant was in anyway justified in withholding Company money regardless of his sense of grievance at the time. In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the suspension for this misconduct be reduced to one day.
There is however a sharp difference between the parties as to the calculation of the original shortage, if any. In order to dispose of this issue the parties should meet to establish the factual position and agree the amount due and owing from this shortfall. The amount so identified should then be paid. Pending the outcome of this exercise the €30 already paid should be retained by the Company.
Further, the Court recommends that the claimant be paid in respect of his attendance at the hearing before this Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th May, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.