FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRAUN ORAL B IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-045572/045573/045574-IR-06/JH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case involves an appeal by three workers (Setter Operators) against a final written warning and four days' unpaid suspension for an alleged serious breach of discipline. The Company listed three grounds for the disciplinary sanctions:
(1) Engaged in horseplay,
(2) Were absent from their department without their supervisor's permission,
(3) Abused Company time,
A maintenance manager in the Company claimed that when he went to investigate shouting and laughing coming from a compressor room he discovered one of the workers kicking a ball and being cheered by the other two. The manager claimed that he detected a strong smell of cigarette smoke in the compressor room.
The maintenance manager claims that he told the three workers that their behaviour was unacceptable and that they should return to their workplace. Following an investigation by Human Resources in the Company the workers were given a final written warning and four days' unpaid suspension. The workers deny the charges made against them.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and her recommendation was as follows:
"Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I consider that the disciplinary sanction imposed by the company was not unjustified and I do not recommend concession of the Union's claim."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd April, 2007, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Maintenance Manager who was directly involved in the complaint was not present at the Rights Commissioner's hearing. This was unfair on the workers as they could not directly refute his accusations.
2. The Company breached its own agreed internal procedures in the way it investigated the incident e.g. there was no written complaint for the workers to read and respond to.
3. The worker deny that they were smoking or playing football of any kind. The workers have excellent disciplinary records with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management is satisfied that the conduct of the three workers was inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Their absence (15 - 20 minutes) could have caused a lapse in production which led to significant losses for the Company.
2. The Company believes that it dealt fairly with the workers and was justified in the discipline taken. They were afforded Union representation at all times and the right to appeal the Company's decision.
DECISION:
The Court agrees that any offence which took place did so as defined under the terms of the Company /Union agreement on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures.
The Court's view is that the sanctions applied by the Company were somewhat severe in all the circumstances outlined.
The Court, accordingly, decides that the final written warnings should stand but that the period of unpaid suspension be reduced from 4 days to 2 days. The Court varies the Rights Commissioner's recommendation accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th January, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.