FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK PLASTICS (MANUFACTURING) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Removal Of Warning And Reimbursement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June 2007 the Company issued a final written warning and imposed a two week unpaid suspension on the Worker following an incident earlier in the month. The Union's claim is that the Worker followed procedure by reporting the incident and is now being sanctioned severely for what was an accident. The Company's position is that both the warning and suspension were merited given the seriousness of the incident and the Worker's previous disciplinary record.
On the 6th September, 2007 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th November, 2007. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 During 2005 and 2006 the Union has encouraged its members to appeal any unwarranted or unjust sanction in the hope that by appealing and getting successful outcomes it may encourage the Company to apply procedures and sanctions more fairly and transparently.
2 The sanctions imposed on the Worker for the incident make a mockery of disciplinary procedures and does not follow the normal steps of any disciplinary procedure. Section 18 of the Company Union Agreement sets out how standards of conduct and performance are to be dealt with. Neither of the steps set out were followed on either occasion the Worker was disciplined.
3 The Union believes that the Worker should not be sanctioned as harshly as he has been. The sensible thing to do would be to do a risk assessment of the area involved and whether corrective measures could be taken, for example training, safety bollards and alarms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Worker has demonstrated a high degree of unreliability in relation to his judgement exercise of care and the diminution of risks. The Company must be in a position where it has confidence in the Worker at all times.
2 The Company believe that the sanctions imposed were justified. Anything less would diminish the seriousness of the Worker's driving record.
3 The Company must have a right to apply discipline where an employee has a record of incidents such as in the case of the Worker. The Company submits that it has been lenient and tolerant to the highest degree possible. The Company emphasise this because in its view a decision on termination could have arisen. The Company has a legal responsibility to create a safe working environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The view of the Court is that the offence committed did not merit the level of sanction applied. The Court is not of the view that the Company correctly interpreted its own procedures.
It is true that a level of carelessness was involved which may merit some sanction
The Court recommends that the Worker's suspension be rescinded but that he be placed at the Written Warning phase of the disciplinary procedure for 12 months with effect from the date of the second incident
The Court also urges the parties to conclude discussions on the revised Company/Union Handbook, incorporating a revised Grievance/Disciplinary procedure.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.