AD9744

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/108 APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD9744 (596/96) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARATHON PETROLEUM - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 596/96.





BACKGROUND:

2. Marathon Petroleum operates the Kinsale Head gas field situated 30 miles off the coast. The production facilities are comprised of 2 platforms situated 3 miles apart and are manned 24 hours a day all year round. Each platform has two areas consisting of 10 operatives each all working a 'week on' 'week off' basis. The claimant has worked as production operator since 1979 and reports to the offshore installation manager. On the 18th of February 1996 he was instructed by the manager to remove grating and clean the deck underneath because of an accumulation of debris. He completed the work over a few days. On return to shore on the 21st of February he claimed, through his Union, that the work allocated to him was both unsafe and humiliating. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 30th January 1997 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:

"Accordingly, I recommend that the worker accept that the manager did not set out to humiliate him as alleged and that he accept the offer of an apology from the manager for any inadvertent offence".
(The worker and manager were named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).



On the 10th of March, 1997 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on the 27th of August, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. The worker concerned was victimised by Management because he was sent out in severe weather conditions to work on a job normally undertaken by two workers. (Details of the work undertaken supplied to the Court).

2. The manager had already been out earlier that morning and was aware of the very bad weather conditions. He accompanied the worker to the site to show him the work to be done and sarcastically remarked about the worker's background in the 'building industry' stating that the claimant would be 'well able' for this kind of work.

3. Other workers expressed their concern about the conditions in which the claimant was allowed to work without assistance.

4. The worker has no recollection of the manager offering him an apology. For the Company to say that work, in such conditions, was "well within the normal scope of work" on a day with winds blowing 40 - 60 knots is unacceptable.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:


4. 1. The Company was not aware that the claimant had a problem conducting his task until notified by the Union on the 21st of February, 1996. The Company carried out an immediate extensive investigation of the incident. The investigation concluded that the worker was asked to perform a legitimate task which was well within the normal scope of work and is periodically carried out by production operators.

2. The manner in which the manager assessed hazards associated with the task and issued specific instructions, verbal and written, to address the identified risks cannot be faulted.

3. Although the weather on the day was far from ideal the employee was working on the sheltered side of the platform. Other operators on duty were engaged in arguably more arduous tasks and in more exposed locations without complaints.

4. The manager had offered on three separate occasions to apologise to the claimant in case he had inadvertently offended him on the occasion in question. The claimant was treated no differently to any other employee who may have been required to work in similar conditions on any similar task. It is accepted that the work environment can prove difficult and unpleasant and that operators on occasions may not like the nature of duties required of them.




DECISION:

The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.

The Court therefore rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
5th September, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.