FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DRIVER HARRIS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Dispute concerning final written warning and suspension of worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue concerns the Claimant, employed as a general operative by Irish Driver Harris, manufacturer of electric cable, based in New Ross, Co.Waterford who was issued with a final written warning and placed on one month’s unpaid suspension from work in January 2004 due to alleged interference with production.
The Union contends that the disciplinary hearing was not carried out correctly and there is no proof for the allegations which led to the disciplinary action. The Union are seeking (i) a formal apology, (ii) reimbursement of the month’s unpaid wages and (iii) a return to work without a warning.
The Company claims that the Claimant has had a problem with accepting changes in work practices introduced in April 2001. The new work practices which were part of a Union agreement and coupled with payment of a National Wage Agreement saw the practice of employing 2 operatives per machine replaced by employing 3 operatives per 2 machines.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th September, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Claimant was a victim of bullying and harassment by Management for levels of production being below the average. She was part of a 3 person per 2 machines operation, all performing the same duties. She was the only person questioned as regards low levels of production.
2. There is a proper code of conduct and procedures which the Union contends did not take place in this case. The Union also contends no proper investigation took place and the worker was denied natural justice.
3 The Claimant had no previous warnings prior to January, 2004.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company is entitled to implement work practices agreed with SIPTU.
2. The Claimant was suspended with pay pending completion of the Company's investigation. On completion, the Claimant was suspended for one month without pay starting Monday, 19th January 2004.
3. The production records and the Company's investigation showed that the worker:
- was not meeting minimum production output;
- was deliberately restricting her output;
- was pressuring others to do likewise;
- had torn up records; and
- had tampered with production figures to support her own unofficial "production quota".
4. Such actions could have led to dismissal and the Company's response was lenient.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerned the Union's contention that the worker was unfairly treated when she was given one month's unpaid suspension and issued with a final written warning following an investigation into the worker's behaviour.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were not carried out appropriately and were not in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
Consequently, the Court recommends that the pay deducted from the worker for a period of one month should now be restored. The Court notes that the final written warning issued in January 2004 has since expired and therefore has no status. In the event that it remains on the worker's personnel file, it should be removed with immediate effect.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th April, 2006______________________
JB/MGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.