FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST JAMES'S HOSPITAL - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Immediate reinstatement for three Electricians suspended.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute was referred to the Court on 27th February, 2013 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
History of the Dispute
The Union argues that the Workers involved in this dispute over a prolonged period of time developed a practice of placing locks on electrical circuit boards/panels. They did this in order to protect the boards/panels from interference by untrained personnel and in order to protect people from the risk of electric shock and property from the risk of damage from power surges. The Workers argue that they cannot understand why Management reacted in such a hostile manner when they placed impugned the locks on the respective circuit boards and electric panels. They argue that they were motivated by health and safety concerns. They maintain that they were not motivated by a desire to subvert Management’s authority. They argue that Management was aware of the general practice over a long number of years and its behaviour on this occasion is unreasonable. They submit that the nature of Management’s response can only be explained in the context of a hostile agenda against the workers concerned.
Management argues that Workers took the impugned action without permission; was in itself dangerous and inappropriate and was part of an ongoing industrial dispute that had been rumbling in the background for a number of months. Management maintains that it has primary responsibility for the protection of the health and safety of staff, patients, plant equipment and property. Accordingly it argues that it cannot tolerate unapproved and unilateral action by any group, no matter how well motivated. Accordingly, it argues, that the actions of these Workers amount to a serious breach of health and safety standards that must be dealt with as such and that accordingly may give rise to disciplinary sanctions. In this context it suspended the Workers on full pay whilst it conducted an investigation into the impugned events.
The Workers concerned, with considerable reluctance, co-operated with the investigation. On the basis of the outcome of the investigation Management commenced a disciplinary process with the Workers involved.
The Workers reacted to Management's decision to deal with the matter through the disciplinary process by serving strike notice and in due course withdrawing their labour and placing pickets.
Management has not processed the matter through the disciplinary procedures whilst the dispute has been in progress.
The Workers demand an end to the disciplinary process. Management insists on completing it.
Both parties have told the Court that they are anxious to re-establish normal working relations.
Finally the Court notes that Management, on foot of an engagement with the Health and Safety Authority, is in the process implementing technical adjustments to the Hospital’s electrical systems that will address some of the issues that gave rise to the dispute. The Union is committed to working with management to implement the adjustments.
Findings of the Court
The Court finds that Management is responsible for the management of the Hospital and is entitled to commence disciplinary proceedings. The Workers are entitled to engage with such proceedings in the manner that best advantages them. In this case they have decided to challenge the motivation behind Management’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them and to object to the manner in which the exercise is being administered. However, the Workers cannot veto the process by refusing to address the actual charges made against them. Management has the right and responsibility to either complete or abandon the process in a timely fashion. The Workers retain the right to appeal against whatever decision emerges from that process.
Recommendation
In this context the Court recommends that Management should decide to either complete or abandon the disciplinary procedure it has commenced. It should do so in a timely fashion and inform the Workers of its decision.
The Workers should set out in writing, either individually or through their trade union, their response to Management’s decision and how they will engage with this phase of the procedure.
Any appeal against any disciplinary decisions Management makes should, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, be jointly referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(2) of the Act.
In the interim the Union should call off the current industrial action and the Workers should make themselves available for work upon acceptance of this Recommendation.
Management, upon notification of acceptance of this Recommendation by the Union involved, should reinstate the Workers to the payroll without delay. The timing of their return to work should be made in the context of the outcome of the disciplinary procedure currently under way.
The Court will facilitate the parties with an early hearing of any appeal referred.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th March, 2013
JF Brendan Hayes
Deputy Chairman.
The Court met the parties on 23rdApril 2013 to establish their respective understanding of LCR No 20488 issued by way of letter on the 19th March, 2013.
By way of clarification the Court advises both sides that the Recommendation should be understood to mean that management’s actions conformed with LCR No 20488 when it decided to initiate disciplinary procedures in this case and to offer the workers affected the opportunity to make submissions and defences with regard to both the procedural and substantive issues involved. The workers were free to determine the level at, and manner in, which they chose to become involved in that process. In this case they decided to withhold engagement with the process until all matters at issue were appealed to this Court. Management was equally entitled to decide the issues on the basis of the evidence before it and to propose sanctions it considered appropriate.
Having decided upon such sanctions, Management was obliged to offer the workers affected access to the internal appeals processes set out in the procedural agreement in place in the hospital. It is clear that the workers concerned decided not to avail of an internal appeal within the allowed time, which has now expired, choosing instead to appeal the matter directly to this Court.
The Court takes the view that these were a legitimate interpretation of the Court’s Recommendation in this case.
The matter is now appealed to this Court by way of a joint referral under Section 20(2) of the Act.
Accordingly the Court proposes to schedule a hearing to consider the appeal at an early date. In the interim the Court takes the view that implementation of the sanctions decided upon should be stayed until the Court has decided the matter.
The Court so clarifies LCR No 20488.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
24th April, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.