FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ESSILOR ORGANIC LENS MANUFACTURING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR18252/04/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a process operator in January, 1995, and was promoted to the position of Purchasing Office in 2000 approximately. The dispute concerns a verbal warning that issued to him in December, 2002. The worker's case is as follows:- on the 5th of December, 2002, following a day's absence, the worker was asked by the Logistics Manager to go to the Moulds Store to carry out the functions of another employee who was absent. The worker explained that a few years earlier, whilst assisting with the same task, an error had occurred that he had erroneously been blamed for. He told his manager that he had a lot of paperwork to complete as a matter of urgency. The Logistics Manager said"are you saying you won't do it "and walked out without waiting for a response. On the 9th of December, at a meeting with the Human Resources Officer, he was asked if he would go to the Mould Stores again and replied that he would if he got the proper training and was shown how to do the job. The following day he was issued with a verbal warning.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:-
"In the light of the above, I now recommend that the worker and SIPTU should accept that this appeal fails".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation.)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16th of December, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing place on the 25th of May, 2005, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This case has caused the worker much anxiety, distress and upset. He believes that it has sullied his good name and character.
2. The purported incident was out of character to the professional manner in which the worker conducts his business affairs.
3. The worker was extremely busy at the time he was asked (not told) to go to the Moulds Store. Considering the incident of a few years earlier he was reluctant to go to the Store unless he was fully trained in the work.
4. Another employee was asked to go the Moulds Store to help out. He refused but was not given any warning or reprimanded in any way.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company expects co-operation and flexibility from its employees. The worker blatantly refused to assist management in the task at hand.
2. The worker was only asked to assist the Production Planner in the Moulds Store, not take full responsibility. He had already been trained in the area.
3. The verbal warning expired in June, 2003.
4. Any concession of the Union's claim would serve to undermine the excellent working relationship in the Company.
DECISION:
The Court has given serious consideration to the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes that the worker had been given instructions on the day in question from a senior manager in Accounts to carry out urgent paperwork and that his own direct supervisor was absent on that day. The Court is of the view that there was some doubt as to both the urgency of the production duties he was been required to do and the nature of that request - whether he was being asked to assist in the production area or instructed to. Clearly there were conflicting priorities required of him from both directions.
However, the Court is of the view that given his position in the Company, the worker should have responded in a more flexible manner to the request (under protest if necessary) and secondly, the Company could have taken a less formal approach to the matter.
The Court is of the view that in the circumstances a pre-warning stage may have been more appropriate in order to convey the seriousness of the situation.
In conclusion, and in all the circumstances of this case, the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th June, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.