FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIPPERARY NORTH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disciplinary action.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute relates to a request by the Union for the removal of a letter from the files of six retained firefighters relating to their non-attendance at a training course on the 10th March, 2003. A'hot fire training course' was scheduled for 10th March, 2003. The Union maintain that on the evening prior to the course significant concern was expressed by firefighters relating to the dangers of this course and in particular an issue relating to insurance cover available. No formal decision was taken regarding attendance at the course but the following day the claimants did not attend. As a result the Council issued letters to each of the claimants advising that, if they failed to cooperate in the future with any formal training, disciplinary action would be taken. The letter itself does not constitute disciplinary action. Following Union requests, Management refused to withdraw the letter. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Thurles on the 11th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are dedicated and long serving firefighters with unblemished service. They are very unhappy that such letters were issued and would be retained on file. As a gesture of goodwill the Union is seeking the removal of the letters.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants were due to attend the course and did not do so. No notice was given to the Council. Formal disciplinary action would have been justified but in this instance leniency was shown.
2. The Council indicated its willingness to put a limit on the period of time the letters would remain active. This is contingent on an acknowledgement in writing from the Union that such occurrences would not happen in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that SIPTU have conveyed an adequate level of assurance with regard to their future participation in training courses. The Court recommends that this should be reiterated in a letter to the Council.
On this basis the Court recommends that the letters issued on 6th May, 2003 to the firemen involved in this claim should be set aside and removed from their personnel files.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd February, 2004______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.