FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GOODE CONCRETE LIMITED - AND - AGEMO TRADE GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rehearing of Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17875.
BACKGROUND:
2. Goode Concrete Limited is a well-established company employing approximately 160 workers in its six plants throughout the country. In January 2004 a dispute arose with a driver at the Killeen Road plant who was dismissed following his refusal to drive an articulated truck for which he did not have a licence.The driver placed a picket on the premises where he was joined by two of his colleagues when they became aware of what had happened. The two workers were subsequently dismissed when they failed to leave the picket line and return to work.
Following an earlier Labour Court hearing the Court recommended that the position of the dismissed workers be referred jointly to a Rights Commissioner for adjudication. If the Company was not willing to join with the Union in a joint referral the matter was to be referred back to the Labour Court for a definitive recommendation.
The issue was referred back to the Labour Court on the 7th September, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th December, 2004.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Company failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the circumstances before deciding to dismiss the two workers.
2. The Company had no provisions for dealing with disputes or grievances among its workers at the time of the incident.
3. The workers were not aware that their actions could lead to the loss of their employment with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Despite requests to the two workers to enter into talks with the Company to resolve the dispute the workers failed to do so.
2. By leaving their place of work and placing a picket on the premises without using the recognised industrial relations procedures the workers broke the terms of their contract of employment.
3. The Company did inform the workers of the risk of dismissal if they persisted with picketing the premises.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the claimants in this case engaged is unofficial industrial action and the Court cannot condone their conduct in that regard. Since this was the only reason for the dismissal the Court must hold the claimants responsible, to a significant degree, for any loss which they incurred.
The Court notes, however, that during the continuance of the action, the employer met with the claimants and another former employee who was similarly engaged in unofficial industrial action and made an offer in settlement of the dispute. The employer thus recognised some legitimacy in their grievance.
In all the circumstances, and without condoning, in any sense, the course of action adopted by either party in their handling of this dispute, the Court recommends that the claimants receive an ex gratia payment of €2,000 each in full and final settlement against the employer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th December, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.