FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Disciplinary procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal by the Union of a decision made following a disciplinary hearing, on behalf of its member, who is employed by the Company as a locomotive driver. On two occasions, the 19th August 2003 and the 2nd of October 2003, the driver passed a signal displaying a red (stop) light. Following investigations into both incidents, the District Manager found the driver negligent in his duties and issued the following sanction:
- "Warning that any future serious incident which could compromise the safe operation of the railway may result in you being removed from the driving grade or dismissal from the board's service"
The decision was appealed and heard by the Passenger Services Manager who amended downwards the decision in respect of the 19th August and upheld the sanction imposed in respect of the 2nd October.
- On the 23rd of December, 2003, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th April, 2004.
- The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
- The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The disciplinary action taken against the driver is extreme and out of line with the Company's own disciplinary procedures. The Company is issuing two decisions in one: "removal from the driving grade or dismissal from the Board's service".
2. The Union do not have difficulty with the decision of warning, the difficulty is in relation to the other decisions attached to it. If the worker has any issues in the future no matter how minor they are, it could result in his removal from the driving grade or dismissal.
3. The Passenger Services Manager has increased the penalties rather than in circumstances where they would be either upheld or reduced. The sanctions should be warnings and the decisions attached should be removed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Agreed procedures are both fair and just and have stood the test of time. The worker has been treated fairly in accordance with those procedures
2. The sanction at appeal stage was not increased by the Passenger Services Manager but supports that of the District Manager.
3. Procedure was followed and the sanction imposed should stand.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties is satisfied that the agreed procedures were followed in this case.
The Court finds that the disciplinary decisions taken are not unreasonable or unfair taking into account all aspects of this case and therefore they should stand.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th April, 2004______________________
JO'C/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.