Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91358 Case Number: LCR13404 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the suspension of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is of the view that the outcome of the agreed appeals machinery
should be upheld.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91358 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13404
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the suspension of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a depotman
in Waterford. On 5th May, 1989, the depotman was rostered to
begin his duty at 00.30 a.m. and finish at 08.30 a.m., and to work
overtime to 12.30 p.m. as required, i.e. a double turn of duty.
The Union contends that in such circumstances it is quite normal
for staff who live reasonably near the station to take a short
break at home. There has been a tradition of doing this in
Waterford Station with the full knowledge of management. At 05.00
a.m. on the day in question, the depotman concerned went home with
the intention of staying and not to double book himself on that
morning. On that particular morning two other workers failed to
attend for duty and there was a staff shortage as a result. Due
to the shortage the supervisor on duty required the depotman
concerned to work the 05.55 a.m. Limerick Liner; however, he had
already gone home. The Company says that the depotman went
off-duty without permission and failed to sign-off duty in
accordance with normal procedures. The Company contends that as a
result of the depotman not working his rostered turn of duty the
Limerick Liner was delayed for almost 5 hours.
3. On 6th September, 1989, the depotman was formally charged with
"failure to work as rostered on Friday, 5th May, 1989." In the
absence of any request for a disciplinary hearing, the District
Operating Manager issued his findings on 20th November, 1989. A
penalty of two days' suspension was imposed. The depotman
contended that he had requested a hearing when he was originally
charged. Although no record of this request was found, the
District Operating Manager withdrew the penalty to enable a
hearing take place as provided for in the Disciplinary Procedures.
The hearing took place on 5th January, 1990. Following the
hearing the depotman was advised in writing of the outcome, which
was "two days' suspension and a warning that any further incidence
would have serious consequences." On 25th January, 1990, the
depotman appealed the outcome of the hearing. The appeal was
heard on 1st February, 1990, by the Regional Manager Operations,
who upheld the decision of the District Operating Manager. The
Union rejected the Company's decision and sought referral to a
third party. The Company declined to co-operate with this and on
29th May, 1991, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior
to the Court's investigation of the matter on 20th August, 1991,
in Waterford, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union believes that the disciplinary proceedings and
penalty imposed on the depotman are unjustified. Custom and
practice at Waterford Station is that staff who live near the
station often take a short break at home. This is done with
the full knowledge of management.
2. The absence of the other workers on the morning of 5th
May, 1989, left a manpower shortage and highlighted the
depotman's absence. Despite the fact that he lives only yards
from the station and that calling to workers' homes to call
them out is a fairly regular feature of operations, no attempt
was made to contact him. Instead he was disciplined for what
the Company describe as "failing to work the agreed roster."
The decision of the Company to take such proceedings were
contested by the Union given the circumstances of the case;
however, the Company issued a two day suspension and written
warning.
3. If this were simply a case of a worker going absent on a
turn of duty and being justifiably disciplined the Union would
not be contesting the matter. The fact of the matter is that
in Waterford Station there has been a tradition of flexibility
in running the service. The Company has gained more from this
flexibility than the workers. One of the few concessions is
that an excessively tired worker can operate a "task and
finish system." The workers have always operated this with
common sense, recognising that everyone cannot rush their
duties and go home leaving the station unmanned. All the
depotman did was follow normal practice.
4. The fact that the depotman was penalised is a reflection
of the new policy of the Company where all small concessions
given must be clawed back. The worker could have been
contacted when the two other workers did not arrive for duty.
He had already proved willing to be accommodating by his
agreement to cover double turns of duty. The Union believes
that he should not have been penalised and that these
penalties should be removed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has always been concerned to uphold the
disciplinary machinery and for this reason it is not Company
policy to refer matters, already processed through agreed
machinery, to a third party. The depotman concerned has
already been dealt with fully under this machinery. The
agreed machinery either stands or falls; neither party can
have it both ways.
2. The depotman's offence was most serious. A delay of
almost 5 hours for the Limerick Liner resulted from his
failure to work his rostered turn of duty. The agreed
disciplinary machinery resulted in a 2 days' suspension being
imposed and served. The outcome of the disciplinary
procedures should be accepted.
3. The Court has in the past upheld the integrity of the
agreed procedures. Recently in L.C.R. 13277 of 23rd May,
1991, the Court stated that the procedures "agreed and
accepted by the parties, have served the Company and workers
well since their implementation, and provided the procedures
are implemented fairly the Court considers there should be no
interference with the decisions as a result of the use of the
procedures, unless such decisions are plainly unreasonable.
The grievance and disciplinary procedures are a set of rules
agreed by the parties with a view to giving the worker a right
to fair procedures. They are a guarantee that, having regard
to all the circumstances of the case, the procedures available
to the worker and adopted in dealing with it, will be fair."
4. The Company requests the Court to find that the depotman
has been correctly dealt with through the disciplinary
machinery and that the outcome of that machinery should be
accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is of the view that the outcome of the agreed appeals machinery
should be upheld.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________________
20th September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.