FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disciplinary action.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the unfair application of discipline to nine Clerical/Administrative workers in the Dublin Port Company. Following an unofficial dispute in the Company, nine workers who refused to carry out normal duties were suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary hearing into the matter. The disciplinary committee issued its findings in writing on the 19th September, 2003 to the workers i.e. (i)You will be deducted full pay in respect of the period in which you continued to refuse to obey management instructions namely from Tuesday 22nd July 2003 to Sunday 27th July, 2003 inclusive, (ii) a written warning as to your conduct will be placed on your record and will remain there for a period of twelve months at which time it will be reviewed.The workers were advised of their right to appeal the decision to the Chief Executive. All chose to exercise this right. Following the hearing of the appeal by the Chief Executive, the findings of the committee were upheld.
The claim could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 11th March, 2004 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th May, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 A comprehensive agreement was reached between the Company and workers in 2001. The Company breached this agreement with the withdrawal and loss of the 10% bonus. It placed new conditions on the attainment of the remaining bonus and demanded the achievement of a particular profile of headcount reduction through compulsory means if necessary.
2. In response to this arbitrary action an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was held by the workers. Workers passed a motion to withdraw their co-operation, which they did. On the basis of this action Management stopped payment of the 10% bonus to the workers involved in this decision.
3. A back to work agreement was stuck on the basis that the status quo be observed between the Union and the Company without any coercive action. The Company did proceed with disciplinary hearings against the nine workers.
4. The disciplinary hearings and subsequent appeal were futile in that management refused to hear the mitigating context and sequence of events that led to the action, thereby precluding the opportunity for natural justice to be served.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The workers concerned engaged in unofficial industrial action. No secret ballot was taken nor notice of action communicated to the Company.
2. They were given several opportunities to comply with Management's instructions and resume work. They were advised that they could resume normal working under protest.
3. The Company afforded the individuals the opportunity to withdraw from this unofficial action.
4. The Company abided by all of the procedures laid down in the disciplinary code.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the workers associated with this claim were engaged in unofficial industrial action and this cannot be justified or defended in any circumstances. However, it is noted that a return to work agreement provided for the maintenance of the status quo whilst certain matters were being processed procedurally and this involved the employees concerned undertaking the disputed work. Whilst in no sense minimising the gravity of what occurred and while accepting that the actions of those involved is capable of constituting misconduct for disciplinary purposes, the Court recommends as follows:
- The parties should reaffirm their commitment to the observance of all existing agreements.
- The Union and its members should undertake to abide by normal industrial relations procedures in processing grievances or disputes and in particular they should firmly undertake not to engage in any form of unofficial industrial or coercive action in the future in any circumstances whatsoever.
- Based on the foregoing and in the special circumstances of this case the Company should restore the pay deducted on foot of the disputed suspensions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th_May, 2004______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.