FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY O'MEARA GERAGHTY MCCOURT) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Unlawful and unfair final written warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a part-time school bus driver in March, 1979. She transports school-going children to and from primary and secondary schools in Carlow Town. The Company's case is that between September, 2005, and June, 2006, it received a number of complaints from parents of children regarding the performance of the worker's duties. There was also a specific complaint involving a parking incident at Paulstown School where the worker, who was unable to park outside the School, chose the parents' car park as an alternative drop-off point.
The Company wrote to the worker regarding a charge of "careless/poor work performance/negligence" and the worker was asked to attend a disciplinary hearing. The result was that the worker was issued with a penalty of seven days' notice of dismissal. The worker appealed the decision and it was changed to a final written warning and a suspension of four weeks without pay.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 25th of January, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of September, 2007. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.There was a history of parking difficulties outside Paulstown School. The worker was prevented from parking the bus in its usual spot due to parents' cars. She chose the car park in an effort to get the children to school on time.
2.The sanctions as imposed by the Company were unlawful and wholly disproportionate.The procedure used to conduct the appeal was inherently flawed. The Company failed to take into account the reasons as to why the worker parked where she did and the background to the incident.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The worker's case was fully dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Disciplinary Policy and In-House Procedures. The Company has always accepted and implemented Appeals Board decisions. The worker was represented by her Union at all stagesof the procedure.
2.The incident at Paulstown School was taken very seriously by the Company as it could have placed the children at risk.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
The Court does believe that there was some degree of procedural deficiency in the matter in which the complaint of dangerous parking against the Claimant was originally investigated. This, in the Court's view, arose from the amount of extraneous and prejudicial material that was taken into account in deciding an appropriate sanction.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the final warning be reduced to a severe warning under the agreed disciplinary code. That warning should last for 12 months from the original date on which the final warning was imposed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th September, 2007______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.