FULL RECOMMENDATION
) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERFORD COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL WHELAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-143592-ir-14/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is employed as a Plumber with Waterford County Council. He was disciplined for refusing to carry out an instruction to attend and fix a leak in an an adjacent work area when instructed to do so by his direct superiors. Following a disciplinary process he was suspended from work and issued with a written warning. The suspension was subsequently reduced and ultimately eliminated through the appeals process and through an error on the Council's part. It does not wish to restore the suspension in this case. The warning expired after a period of 9 months and is now moot. The Claimant argues that he at all times acted in accordance with the terms of the agreements under which he worked. He argues that the suspension was neither warranted nor valid. He further argues that the Council breached its own procedures in the manner in which it dealt with this matter.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 21st October 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- Having carefully considered the evidence as presented before the hearing I have formed the opinion that the claimant has not presented a valid complaint.
It is clear that the employee is employed as an hourly paid employee to undertake work as directed by the council. He was legitimately requested to fulfil a function albeit in an area where he would not normally have attended to but it is not without a pattern of having worked in that area previously.
The claimant refused to carry out such work and as such put himself outside of his contract whereby he could not work the hour to earn the hour of pay.
It is clear that there is an overarching issue in relation to the duel allowance to be paid in circumstances of work within the council and these matters have been tended to as a collective agreement.
In relation to the specific arrangement I feel that the matters were conducted in a fair and reasonable manner and that the council was fair and reasonable in its approach to the claimant and the warning has effectively been served. As with all industrial relations issues a warning is a warning and is only an indication of the required reach a particular level of performance going forward.
There is no evidence to suggest there is a residual downfall in relation to these matters.
It is my recommendation that this matter be deemed closed and as such the employee be recognised as a good employee going forward.
- Having carefully considered the evidence as presented before the hearing I have formed the opinion that the claimant has not presented a valid complaint.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th March 2015.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has an unblemished employment record with the Council since the commencement of his employment in 1995.
2. The Claimant argues that he at all times acted in compliance with the terms of the agreements under which he is employed.
3. The Claimant argues that Management breached its own procedures in the manner in which it disciplined him and accordingly the sanctions cannot stand.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was requested to carry out a leak repair in an area in Waterford County outside of his normal working area but within the general administrative area of the Council.
2. Despite being issued with the instruction on a number of occasions, he advised that he was refusing to carry out the request to undertake the work outside his area.
3. The Council believes that the disciplinary sanction of a written warning which was applied was both reasonable and proportionate having considered all of the circumstances of the case.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the issues that gave rise to this dispute have now been resolved between the parties. The Court further notes that Management has rescinded for all purposes the suspension it imposed on the Worker. Finally, the Court notes that the warning the Council issued to the Worker concerned has now expired.
In the circumstances the Court finds that this outcome represents a fair resolution of the matters before it and decides accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
27th March, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.