FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROADSTONE LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-152031-ir-14/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's decision to issue a Written Warning to the Worker for refusing to move to a different machine. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 29th May, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that this claim has no basis and that it should fail."
On the 18th June, 2015 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 2nd September, 2015.
3. 1. The Comprehensive Agreement between the Company and the Union clearly states that where a dispute arises normal working conditions continue to operate pending resolution.
2.The Company failed to comply with the Comprehensive Agreement.
3.The Union believes that the Company chose to make an example of the Worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company-Union agreement commits Workers to flexible interchangeable working.
2.The Company has the right to manage personnel as it sees fit.
3.The Company believes its decision to issue a written warning was proportionate and appropriate.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the parties are agreed that Management has the power under the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement to transfer staff, within grade, to any duty for which they have been trained and certified to perform. In order to do so however Management must abide by and stay within the terms of the Agreement.
In this case the Union argues that Management transferred the Claimant for disciplinary rather than productivity reasons and accordingly was not acting within the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement. Management argues that the transfer was effected in order to improve productivity within the location and was fully in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
Having considered the full written and oral submissions made by both sides the Court finds on the balance of probabilities that discipline was a factor in the decision to change the Claimant's duties on the morning in question. Accordingly the Court finds that the Company acted outside the terms of the Collective Agreement and the decision to transfer the Claimant should not stand.
The Court further finds that the subsequent disciplinary sanction imposed on the Claimant was a consequence of the Company’s actions and also should not stand.
Accordingly the Court decides that the Company should restore the Claimant to “Shovel” duties with immediate effect and remove the warning from his record.
The Court further notes that when restored to those duties the Claimant, like all other staff, remains subject to the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement and may be redeployed to appropriate other work in accordance with the terms of that Agreement.
The Decision of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
18th September, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.