FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH HOLEMASTERS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - 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 R-043749-Ir-06/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in concrete cutting and drilling. The dispute concerns the disciplinary action taken by the Company against the worker.
The worker commenced employment with the Company in 1998 and is employed as a general operative. The Company secured a contract in Navan in 2004 which was due to last for approximately four years, with the Company being the sole drilling contractor on site. The Company's case is as follows: The worker concerned worked on the site sporadically for a number of weeks. On the 25th of April, 2006, the foreman employed by the main contractor contacted the Company and said that the contractor was no longer prepared to put up with the bad time-keeping, poor production and general lack of interest of the worker concerned and two of his colleagues. The foreman asked for the three workers to be removed from the site immediately. Later that day one of the Company's directors met with the three men. He put the contractor's allegations to them and said he would consider their position. As a result of the workers' behaviour the Company lost the contract. On the 28th of April, 2006, the three workers were issued with final written warnings and were suspended for four days.
The Union's case is that the worker was unfairly treated in that not only was disciplinary action not warranted but that proper procedures were not afforded to the worker.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"I recommend that the suspension be reduced to two days and that the final written warning be reduced to a written warning."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th of January, 2007, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of June, 2007.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company spent many years building up a reputation which has been damaged by as a result of the action of the worker and his two colleagues.
2. The contract was terminated with two years still to go at a cost of a minimum of €240,000.
3. The disciplinary action taken by the Company was fair in the circumstances. The other two workers have accepted the disciplinary action taken against them.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned had worked on the site for less than two weeks and his two colleagues were on the site for only one day. He explained that he was late arriving on site on the 26th April, 2006, as he had to collect drilling equipment from the Company's headquarters beforehand.
2. Difficulties on previous days with the Contractor's site foreman were not the fault of the worker. Other employees of the Company had difficulties with the foreman.
3. The Company did not follow fair procedures in dealing with the worker. No formal hearing was set up and no appeal was heard before the disciplinary action was taken.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties to the Company's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. In all the circumstances of this case, having examined all the points presented at the hearing, the Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and, therefore, upholds his recommendation. The Company's appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.