FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVES CASH & CARRY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment for time lost due to heating being out of order.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to a heating problem in the Company's premises in Limerick. The first day it became evident was 21st February, 2006, and there was, in effect, no heating until 2.30 p.m. the 28th of February. On the morning of the 28th February six workers (out of 37 at the plant) walked off the premises due to the lack of heating. Management attempted to telephone the five workers but only one returned at 4.00 p.m. The six workers were told that they would not be paid for the hours they were missing. The Union is seeking that they be paid the money that was deducted.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of November, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of September, 2007, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The period in which the heating was off was one of the coldest of the year. The workers had received assurances from management that the problem would be addressed but this did not happen.
2. The workers advised management on the morning of the 28th February that they would leave the premises if the heating was not fixed. The also stated that they would return when the system was operational.
3.None of the workers remember being offered soup or extra clothing as management claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management took measures to minimise the effects of the heat loss by installing heaters and making soup available to the employees.
2.The delay in fixing the heating problem was that a part had to be sent from France.
3.The six workers who left the premises without authorisation showed total disregard for their employer and their colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
Notwithstanding the conditions prevailing the Court is not satisfied that the Claimants were justified in leaving their employment on the day in question. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court recommends that the offer made by the Company at conciliation be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October, 2007______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.