FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BERKLEY COURT HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR14202/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The five workers concerned have all been employed by the Hotel for some considerable time. In December, 2002, all five were found guilty of gross misconduct. Following disciplinary hearings each received a final warning and a five day suspension without pay. Under the Hotel's disciplinary procedures, appeals were heard and the sanctions were upheld.
The Union appealed the severity of the sanctions to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 8th of January, 2004, as follows:-
"I recommend that the warning now be considered to have expired and that the suspension be reduced to two days".
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th of January, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of March, 2004.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company took a fair and reasonable decision not to terminate the workers' employment, but rather to impose final written warnings and suspension without pay.
2. The question of the severity of the sanctions does not arise as the workers could have been dismissed in the first instance, but were not due to consideration of their admission and respective lengths of service.
3. The reduction of an already lenient decision by the Company is totally unacceptable.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The gross misconduct admitted to by the workers was not carried out with intent.
2. The issuing of a final written warning and five days unpaid suspension was too severe a measure.
3. The suspension took place prior to the appeal against it being heard by the Company. The Union contends that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation took this into account when he reduced the penalty imposed by the Company.
DECISION:
At the hearing the company indicated that it was appealing the reduction in the number of days suspension recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions upholds the appeal and amends the Rights Commissioner's recommendation as follows:
"The warning be now considered to have expired and the suspension to be for 5 days"
.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th April, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.