FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LITTLEFUSE (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR15775/03/JH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of electronics and employs over two hundred staff at its plant in Co. Louth. The worker is employed as a Production Operator. On the 25th June, 2003,having completed normal shiftwork hours,the worker was working overtime, for which a fifteen minute break is allowed in between normal hours and start of overtime. Thirty minutes into the shift, the worker was observed by a supervisor sitting on an outside bench.The supervisor continued to observe the work area and was satisfied that the worker was absent for long periods of time. The worker was called to the supervisors office, asked for a reason for his absences, the supervisor was not satisfied with the reply and advised the worker to go home. A disciplinary hearing took place on the 27th June, 2003, in connection with the incident, the meeting was adjourned to allow for consideration.When the meeting reconvened, the Company issued the worker with a final written warning and a two day suspension without pay.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the worker for stage four of the Disciplinary procedure to be reduced to stage one and the two day suspension be removed, as the action didn't warrant a final warning.
- The Company reject the claim on the basis that the worker was involved in a serious incident of misconduct involving unauthorised absence, breach of trust and unacceptable behaviour towards a Manager.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her findings and recommendation issued on the 31st October, 2003 as follows:
- “Based on the submissions made I find that the Company decision to take serious disciplinary action against the worker was merited. I recommend that the suspension and the reduction in pay be reduced to one day, but otherwise that the sanction will remain in place.”
- The Worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
On the 12th November, 2003, the Union Appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th February, 2004.
- “Based on the submissions made I find that the Company decision to take serious disciplinary action against the worker was merited. I recommend that the suspension and the reduction in pay be reduced to one day, but otherwise that the sanction will remain in place.”
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union agrees that disciplinary action is required but the Company did not fully consider each step of the corrective action procedure.
2.Both Unions and Management have made a great effort to put a corrective action agreement in place for the benefit of both parties, but if Management ignore the first three steps, then this agreement offers no protection to employees.
3.The worker has worked for the Company for a number of years and has had a clear record up to this incident.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was satisfied that the worker intended to accept payment for overtime that he did not work, amounting to a clear breach of trust.
2.The worker's behaviour was totally unacceptable and warranted disciplinary action, which was measured, proportionate and appropriate.
3.The worker was dealt with in accordance with Company procedures, natural justice and due process.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court believes that the recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances of this case and ought to be accepted.
Accordingly, the recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th March 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.