Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2003

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17371

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/646
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17371
(CC02/4939)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
IRISH FERRIES

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. Drug and alcohol policy.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns the Company's proposal to introduce a new Drug and Alcohol policy for all staff. The policy prohibits staff from being under the influence of drugs at work and applies the driving limits to alcohol at work. The policy would allow "with cause" testing of staff. The Union rejected the introduction of the new policy and in particular rejected the idea of testing staff "with cause" or otherwise. Discussions took place locally, but agreement was not reached.

The matter was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission but agreement was not reached.



The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th November, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th December, 2002.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. For the purposes of industrial relations there are clear distinctions and procedures between sea-going and shore-based staff.

2. The clerical agreement has no provision for testing for drugs and alcohol but does provide for commitment to adhere fully to the grievance and disputes procedure.

3. There has not been a problem of drug or alcohol consumption amongst clerical staff.

4. There is no testing of shore-based office staff amongst competitors of the Company.

5. There has been no hazard identification process with regard to Drugs and Alcohol and no assessment of risk as provided for under Section 12.3 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989.

6. The Section Committee are prepared to negotiate and agree a policy reflecting the office environment.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

41 The Company is a public service industry where the issue of safety, in virtually all aspects of its operations is not only paramount but governed by national and international regulations, law and practice.

2. TheHealth and Safety of passengers/customers, crew/staffshould be emphasised and acted upon by all parties as an end in itself.
  • 3.The policy avoids decisions on compliance/noncompliance being influenced or effected through one person only as it requires two managers, one from another department, to be of the opinion that a staff member is in breach before discipline processes can be invoked.
4. All contracts of employment state, infer or imply that staff must be present for duty in a fit state and remain in such a state whilst on duty.

5. In the vast majority of personal or collective agreements, the issue of drugs or alcohol abuse is regarded as gross misconduct, warranting dismissal.

6. The need for standard or uniform policies is very important and must be transparent and capable of being demonstrated before internal investigation bodies, internal appeal processes and external appeal processes.






RECOMMENDATION:

It is noted that the Union accepts the general principles of the Company's Drug and Alcohol Policy. The dispute before the Court relates solely to the proposed use of testing procedures for the purpose of compliance.

The Company accepts that cooperation with such procedures cannot be made mandatory in the case of existing staff. However, in its present form, the proposal to regard a refusal to undergo a test as equating to testing positive renders the procedure de facto compulsory.

The Court believes that the success of the policy, to which all parties subscribe, is dependant on an effective system of ensuring compliance. The Court further believes that this will inevitably involve mandatory testing in appropriate situations.

In the Courts view the parties should enter into further discussions with a view to addressing the practical concerns raised by the Union in relation to the current Company proposals on testing. If final agreement has not been reached by 31st March, 2003, the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
07th January, 2003______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow