Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD95573
Case Number: AD9593
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: SUPERQUINN
- and -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject: Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 183/95 concerning the issuing of final written warning.
Recommendation: There is a conflict of evidence before the Court.
It is the view of the Court that the investigation was flawed and
therefore in the circumstances it cannot support the management's
actions.
The Court therefore upholds the appeal against the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________ CD95573 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SUPERQUINN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 183/95
concerning the issuing of final written warning.
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned is employed as a chargehand at the
Company's store in Finglas. Following an incident at the
store on 19th May, 1995 the worker was issued with a final
written warning. The Company claims that the worker used
aggressive behaviour and foul language towards a work
colleague during the course of her duties as a quality
hygiene officer. The Union rejects the claim.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is as follows:-
"In the light of the above I must uphold the action of the
employer in regarding this matter as serious. However, I
do believe that the issuing of a final written warning for
the incident in question could well be regarded as
excessive.
My recommendation is that this final written warning
should be withdrawn and a written warning substituted with
a life of 3 months effective from May 19th."
The Right Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 30th October, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 24th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the worker used
aggressive and bad language on the day in question.
2. The Rights Commissioner noted that there was a conflict of
evidence between the parties.
3. As the chargehand responsible for the sausage counter, the
worker indicated to the hygiene officer that she was not
wearing her safety shoes.
4. Two of the worker's colleagues support the worker's version
of the incident in writing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In December,1994 the worker used aggressive language towards
an assistant manager. Following an investigation an apology
was issued to the manager concerned. There was a clear
recognition of wrong doing and an undertaking by the worker
not to repeat the behaviour.
2. The worker concerned used aggressive and foul language to a
hygiene officer in the course of her duties. In issuing the
final written warning the Company took other incidents
involving the worker into account. In the circumstances the
Company's actions were justified.
DECISION:
There is a conflict of evidence before the Court.
It is the view of the Court that the investigation was flawed and
therefore in the circumstances it cannot support the management's
actions.
The Court therefore upholds the appeal against the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman