FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GALCO STEEL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TWO NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Health & Safety - overtime
BACKGROUND:
2. Based in Ballymount, Galco Steel Ltd have been at the cutting edge of the galvanizing industry in the State for the past 40 years and currently employs 91 staff. The Claimants are both General Operatives and during the severe winter of 2010/2011 a workshop roof began to sag and allow thawing snow to feed water on to the factory floor near a bath of hot molten metal. The Workers reported this to Management who immediately arranged a temporary fix to stem the flow of water. The Claimants refused to continue working citing a health and safety issue had arisen and sought either a permanent fix or replacement roof be installed. As a result of the refusal to continue to work normally the Worker's hours were curtailed as a sanction imposed by Management.
On the 8th December, 2011 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 14th March, 2012.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers were willing to work in other areas of the plant away from the danger in the galvanising area, this was rejected by Management.
2. The Management refused to operate the grievance procedures thus breaching the Union Management Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim relates to an incident that occurred in November 2010 and was not referred to the Labour Court until December 2011. The claim therefore has not been presented in good time and without undue delay.
2. Both Claimants refused a reasonable instruction to perform their assigned tasks, despite the fact that a temporary fix had been completed. By refusing to work, no further production could continue and as such all staff were at risk of being sent home without pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
- The Court has no doubt that the sanction imposed on the Workers associated with this claim was a disciplinary sanction as that term is normally understood. It follows that the Company should have used its disciplinary procedure before deciding to impose the sanction.
The Court recommends that the Company should now undertake to ensure that should a similar situation arise again the agreed disciplinary procedure will be fully utilised.
Having regard to the lapse of time since this issue first arose, and the consequential difficulties in trying to establish what actually occurred on the day in question, the Court does not consider it appropriate to make any further recommendations.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th March, 2012______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.