FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LAOIS COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - FOUR NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Recommendations of a Rights Commission r-089303-ir-09, r-089304-ir-09, r-089305-ir-09 & r-089306-ir-09
BACKGROUND:
2. The four Claimants are general operatives employed with Laois County Council. The dispute concerns an appeal of a written warning arising from an allegation of refusal to carry out an instruction regarding lone working at road junctions on two days in September 2009. The Claimants were required to redirect traffic at these junctions, they viewed the situation as a health and safety issue and sought clarification on the manning levels required.
The issue involves a claim by four Workers. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 31st August 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"It seems to me that confusion may have arisen on the day in regard to these particular points and therefore I recommend that the discipline be commuted to a verbal warning in all the circumstances"
On the 5th October, 2010 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th September 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers did not refuse to carry out an instruction but were in fact attempting to follow the Council's own Health & Safety policy. It is claimed that they were given verbal assurances that two men would be left at road junctions by the previous Engineer.
2. The Court should find that the sanctions imposed on the Workers were inappropriate and should be rescinded. The Workers are entitled to be awarded a suitable level of compensation on account of the distress they endured.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the norm for junctions to be manned individually and the Claimants have agreed to do so in the past. Exceptions to the norm are only permitted where large volumes of traffic are anticipated and/or the junction is part of a complex traffic management plan.
2. The decision to discipline the four Workers was fair and appropriate and all procedures fully complied with the Council's Grievances and Disciplinary policy. The Council requests that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendations are upheld.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of four Workers of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation. The matter before the Rights Commissioner concerned the Claimants’ claim that the County Council’s application of a written warning to each of the Claimants was inappropriate in circumstances where they had raised a legitimate safety issue. The County Council issued written warnings to the Claimants for their refusal to carry out works assigned to them.
The Rights Commissioner found that confusion may have arisen on the day in question over the information supplied to the Claimants with regard to the provision of a risk assessment and in all the circumstances he recommended that the disciplinary sanction should be commuted to a verbal warning.
Having examined the oral and written submissions of both sides, the Court finds that the rationale for the requirement for one person instead of two persons to control the diversion in question during the road works which were due to take place on 21st September 2009 should have been provided to the Claimant’s safety representative as requested. The Court notes that the Senior Executive Engineer involved in the project gave written instructions on the manning of the junction in question and the reasons why only one person was required, however, these instructions did not adequately address the safety concerns raised.
The Court is further of the view that it would not have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the Claimants to carry out the work involved under protest.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and upholds his Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th September, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.