FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR16357/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in 1979 as a driver. Following a series of verbal and written warnings the Company imposed a disciplinary penalty of 5 days suspension without pay and issued him with a final written warning.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation, issued on the 28th of January, 2004, is as follows:
"The suspension should be reduced from 5 days to 2 days."
TheUnionappealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd February, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Suspension was not warranted because at no time was the worker not complying with procedures when absent.
2. The inclusion of circumstances of 7 years ago by the Company is a blatant attempt to have the worker dismissed.
3.The worker has been receiving medical and counselling assistance due to the pressure he has been under.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council accepts the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
2. The Council acted in accordance with it's disciplinary procedures at all times.
3. The Council's decision to suspend the worker was fair and appropriate having regard to his disruptive behaviour and the fact that he chose to ignore previous verbal and written warnings.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the Union's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court notes the worker's history of indiscipline and record of disciplinary warnings issued over the last number of years. The Court does not accept the Union's contention that the issuing of a final written warning with five days suspension on 7th July, 2003, was a part of a 'campaign/witch hunt' to have the worker dismissed, but accepts that there were genuine reasons for the taking of this disciplinary measure.
The Court accepts that management's issuing of this disciplinary action was in accordance with their disciplinary procedures.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and dismisses the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th May, 2004______________________
MG./MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.