FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AUGHINISH ALUMINA LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - THREE WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR30281/04/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. Aughinish Alumina Limited was established in 1983 at a specially constructed plant on Aughinish Island on the Shannon Estuary. The Company produces alumina from bauxite. It currently employs 500 staff.
The case before the Court concerns three Workers who were issued with final written warnings and two weeks unpaid suspension by the Company following an incident at work. The Workers were also moved from their work area. The two weeks unpaid suspension was reduced, on internal appeal, to one week's suspension. The period of suspension has not yet been affected.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 1st May, 2007 as follows:-
"Accordingly I now formally recommend that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the claimants should be retrospectively amended to Final Written Warnings, and that the claimants and SIPTU should accept this amendment in full and final settlement of their appeals against the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them. The claimants and SIPTU should also accept the company's right to transfer employees, as above."
The Workers appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th June, 2007, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union views the disciplinary sanctions taken against their members as grossly unfair. They were not the only workers involved in the incident yet have taken all the blame for the incident.
2. The Union maintains that the Company disciplinary procedures do not allow the Company to relocate workers as a disciplinary sanction.
3. The Union are of the opinion that the Company must take responsibility for their part in the incident. It is not acceptable to scapegoat workersin this fashion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The seriousness of liquid spillages in the Company cannot be underestimated. The Company has been prosecuted in the past and has responded by providing ongoing training to staff and adopting best practice in environmental management issues.
2. The Company work-teams are Self Directed Work Teams and work without close supervision on a trust basis. Individuals and teams are expected to carry out their job role to an acceptable standard and therefore the Company needs to respond decisively when it sees this is not the case, particularly when the consequences of their inaction have such serious implications.
3. The Workers received final written warnings and a period of suspension for acts of omission. All three had received training by the Company and the Company maintains that it was due to their negligence that disciplinary action was taken.
DECISION:
The case before the Court is an appeal by the three workers of a Rights Commissioner’s recommendation, which found that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the appellants should be amended to a Final Written Warning only, thereby recommending the withdrawal of a suspension, which had also been imposed by the Company. The Rights Commissioner also recommended that the claimants and their Union should accept the Company’s right to transfer employees.
Having given careful consideration to the positions of both sides the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner’s findings regarding the performance of the three employees on the night in question and the Company’s right to impose the disciplinary sanction.
The Company submitted to the Court that the transfer of the two workers to another work location did not form part of the disciplinary sanction. However, it has imposed preconditions on their return for health and safety reasons. The Court is of the view as the transfer does not form part of the disciplinary sanction, if requested by the appellants to return it should be given favourable consideration.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court decides to uphold the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation and reject the worker’s appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.