FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-123138-ir-12/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a provider of security and related services to its customers nationwide. The case concerns a dispute regarding sanctions imposed on the Worker who was employed as a Security Officer assigned to Patrol and Response (P&R) duty after he missed a shift which was assigned to him on his written roster. Management decided that the appropriate sanction would entail a final written warning to remain on his file for one year and his removal from P&R duty with the consequential loss of Beat Allowance. The Union considered that the sanctions were too severe and launched an appeal which only succeeded in having the final written warning reduced to a written warning..
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 30th October, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that (named Worker) should convince his employer that his attitude is customer focussed.
I recommend that (named Worker) convince the Company that he is a team player.
I recommend that the employer appraises him of his current standing in the Company so that there is no misunderstanding between management and himself.
I recommend that if (named Worker) convinces the employer of his bonae-fides then the written warning should be removed with immediate effect.
I also recommend that the employer should favourably consider him for a return to the Patrol & Response team at the next opportunity, provided he has given those assurances above".
On the 10th December, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's 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 19th March, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker failed to check his roster and genuinely believed that he was on a rest day and free to attend a family function. The sanction was disproportionate "as the punishment does not fit the crime".
2. The Worker has given twelve years of diligent service to the Company and it is therefore fitting that he should be returned to the P&R team duties without delay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has not ruled out the Claimant's return to the P&R team but believes that he must firstly rebuild confidence in his approach to customer care through alternative assignments that are more amenable to direct supervision.
2. Should he re-establish hisbonae fideshe could return to the P&R team as early as August 2013 when a serving member of the team is due to retire.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the Union on behalf of the Appellant of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found that under certain conditions the Appellant should be permitted to return to the Patrol & Rescue team at the next available opportunity. In March 2012, as a disciplinary sanction, the Appellant was removed from the Patrol & Rescue team and was furnished with a written warning valid for 12 months.
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation on the basis that it was too vague and lacked a workable framework for implementation. The Company also sought additional guidance on the basis for the Appellant’s return to the Patrol & Rescue team.
Having considered the positions of both parties the Court notes that the Company is satisfied that the Appellant has re-established his bonae fides as encompassed by the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Company is satisfied that subject to no further transgressions the Appellant will be given the next available post on the Patrol & Rescue team which is not likely to occur until the retirement of one member of the team in August 2013.
The Union indicated its satisfaction with this clarity from the Company.
The Court notes that the written warning imposed on the Appellant in March 2012 has now expired. On the basis of the commitment given by the Company as outlined above, the Court recommends that the Company should inform the Appellant of the next available post on the Patrol & Rescue team and, if no further transgressions have taken place in the meantime, the Appellant should be given a position on the team.
The Decision of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly and the appeal is upheld.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th June, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.