FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Restoration Of Grade
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that its member should be restored to his grade following an internal disciplinary process that it believes was flawed. A complaint was made against the worker concerned alleging that he had been involved in an incident with another member of staff which had turned physical. Following an internal investigation and a hearing by the company's Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal, the worker was demoted. The Union's claim is that these procedures were flawed and that the complaint against their member had been withdrawn in May 2008. The Union contend that a very serious personal agenda was being served by the application of the disciplinary procedures in this case. It is the Company's position that the worker was dealt with fairly and in accordance with its procedures. The Company also contend that the worker has a long history of disciplinary issues and inappropriate behaviours during his employment.
On the 26th September, 2008 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th November, 2008. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 It is not the Union's intention to cast aspirations or besmirch the character of any person in advocating this case on behalf of its member. However, the worker concerned has at the hand of the District Manager, aided and abetted by others, suffered an enormous injustice and had his character assassinated. The worker was charged with physically assaulting a staff member. The witness statements to the incident do not establish a prima facie case for the charge.
2 The complaint against the worker was processed through the Equality Department of the Company. At one stage the suggestion of mediation was made to both parties as a way forward in order to resolve the issues. The District Manager refused to avail of mediation whereas the worker indicated that he would be willing. The District Manager having refused to take part in mediation is then the person who applies the Disciplinary Procedures.
3 The Union believes that the worker has been treated disproportionately in comparison with colleagues. The Court should be aware that a by-product of the worker's demotion is his removal from the Super Annuation Pension Scheme for Salaried Grades. The worker should be restored to his position of Station Controller. The worker is prepared to volunteer to attend at any course or avail of appropriate Corrective Coaching.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 In light of the serious allegations made against the worker, the Company exercised its duty of care towards its employees and instigated disciplinary action against the worker concerned. The worker was dealt with in accordance with procedures and in a fair manner.
2 Based on the allegation made and witness statements gathered during the course of investigation the charge against the worker was proven. The sanction imposed by the Appeals Tribunal is fair in the extreme and should not be set aside.
3 The most recent disciplinary matter is not the only issue that has arose in respect of the worker's relationship with his employer. This incident comes on the back of a number of serious incidents and breeches by the worker which the Company has sought to manage in as fair a manner as is possible in the context of the worker's long service and senior position within the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions put to it on this matter, the Court's view is that the findings of the Appeals Tribunal should be upheld and does not accordingly, recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th February, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.