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

 
 
 

2002

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.

 
 

AD0288

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/315
APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD0288
(IR 7597/02/TB)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY F.H. O'REILLY & COMPANY SOLICITORS)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR 7597/02/TB.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a Trucker for twenty two years. On the 8th of January, 2002, following an alleged incident she received a final written warning which she claims was too severe and not warranted. The Company argues that the worker concerned failed to carry out instructions and as a result of her behaviour the palletising plant stopped at a cost to the Company. The final written warning was reasonable. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 6th June, 2002, as follows:-
"I accept that at the very least, the claimant was non co-operative with the



supervisor on the afternoon in question. However, having regard to her length of service and her previous good record I recommend that the final written warning be reduced to a written warning".

The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of November, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. She was employed by the Company for twenty two years, and had never been disciplined.

2. The worker did not refuse to carry out an instruction. She merely objected to carrying out work which was not her work.

3. Due to her unblemished record, the penalty imposed was far too severe.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company agreement states that it is accepted that where required each employee is willing to undertake additional duties.

2. As a result of an instruction not being carried out by the worker concerned, the palletising plant stopped at a cost to the Company which is unacceptable.

3. In the circumstances, the Company believes that the final written warning was reasonable.



DECISION:

Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties the Court concurs with the findings and with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and accordingly rejects the employee's appeal.

The Court so decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
12th December, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, 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