FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PANPAK LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR21056/04/JH
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to March, 2004, the worker had held the position of chargehand for 21 years. On the night shift of the 19th/20th of March, 2004, the worker left the site before finishing time. A number of other employees also left early. The incident was discovered during a routine review of security equipment on the 22nd of March. On checking the signing-out sheet which was to have been filled in by the worker it was clear that no one had signed out in advance of the normal finishing time. When the worker was approached on the 23rd of March he denied what had happened. He was asked to appear at a disciplinary hearing on the 2nd of April at which he admitted what had happened. He claimed that the reason he had left early was that he was feeling unwell. At a further meeting of the 5th of April it was decided that the worker would be demoted to the position of operative. The Union appealed the decision but the Company rejected the appeal and the worker was demoted on the 4th of May, 2004.
The Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner and her recommendation was as follows:
"Based on the foregoing conclusions I consider that the demotion of the worker to the position of operative should stand. I recommend, however, that the value of the loss of the chargehand post be reduced by 50% and not 100% as decided by the employer. This rate of pay to be red circled and paid to the worker as an exceptional measure without precedent among other employees."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
- The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st of January, 2005, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of August, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker admitted that he abandoned his post early on the 20th of March and falsely completed the signing the timesheets for the shift. He refused to take responsibility for the situation and initially lied about what had happened.
- 2. The other workers, when confronted by management, immediately admitted that they had left the work early.
3. The worker's actions would warrant a disciplinary finding of gross misconduct in most instances. The worker could have been dismissed.
4. The Rights Commissioner's findings are based on unsound ground. The worker did not voluntarily inform management of his "actual timekeeping" on the 25th of March, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had an unblemished record for 21 years prior to the incident in question. He was feeling ill and tired on the night of the 20th of
- March due to working back to back shifts. He informed the next most senior person that he was going home and handed over the Company phone. As such, he could not be held responsible for other employees leaving early.
- 2. The worker accepts that he made a mistake in initially denying the incident. His reason was that he wanted to maintain an unblemished record.
3. The other workers who left early were only given verbal warnings. The Union believes that the sanction against the worker was too severe.
- 2. The worker accepts that he made a mistake in initially denying the incident. His reason was that he wanted to maintain an unblemished record.
DECISION:
The Court, having heard the submissions of the parties, feels that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation was just and appropriate to the circumstances.
The Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th August, 2005______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.