FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KILDARE CHILLING COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-037655-Ir-05/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker, with the Company for the past nine years, who is employed on the beef slaughter floor. The issue in dispute concerns the issue of a written warning to the worker. This warning was issued following an investigation by the Company into an allegation that the worker had been observed by his supervisor damaging a beef carcass with a knife and concerning his failure to attend a meeting convened for the purpose of initiating an investigation into the allegation. The Claimant appealed the Company's decision through the internal procedures but the Company's decision was upheld. The Claimant appealed the Company's decision to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 13th March, 2006 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows;
"Based on the submissions made and for he reasons set out in the foregoing I recommend that the sanction of the written warning remain in place".
On the 7th April, 2006 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 16th January, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue which is the subject of the Union's appeal is the incident regarding the alleged scarring of the carcass. The Rights Commissioner states in her conclusions that she was "satisfied on the basis of the evidence given by two workers that the scarring of the meat was not consistent with casual scarring that might occur in a meat plant". This was not an unreasonable judgement to make given the evidence presented to the Rights Commissioner on the day, however, to then pronounce that it was therefore, reasonable for the Company to take the disciplinary action because " it would have been possible for the Claimant to carry out the procedure on the day" is, the Union would contend, unsound and unjust.
2. The Union, on the 19th May informed the Company that it was in a position to call on two witnesses who would testify that the Claimant did not scar the carcass. The Company chose to ignore the evidence of these two witnesses and accept the testimony of the supervisor who, the Union contends, could not have clearly seen what happened because his view was obscured. In light of the fact that two workers' testimony supported the Claimant's version of events it was not reasonable for the Company to persist with the disciplinary action. The Union requests that the warning be withdrawn.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner upheld the Company's position in this case.
2. The Claimant was afforded the right of representation, he was afforded the right to state his case, he was afforded the right of appeal which he availed of.
3. The Company followed all accepted procedures when addressing this issue and carried out all procedures in a fair and reasonable manner. The issue of a written warning was and remains, from the Company's perspective, a reasonable and fair sanction.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered all the oral and written evidence put before it. In all the circumstances, the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and dismisses the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
18th January, 2007
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.