Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86988
Case Number: LCR10997
Section / Act: S67
Parties: LAPPLE (I) LTD - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the interpretation of a Company/Union Procedural Agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having examined the documents and correspondence submitted the
Court is satisfied that the appropriate procedure of verbal and
written warnings in respect of both timekeeping and absenteeism
has been carried out by the Company which is therefore entitled to
impose a period of suspension in this particular case.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
0CD86988 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10997
CC861930 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10997
Parties: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of a Company/Union
Procedural Agreement.
Background:
2. The dispute concerns the method in which a Procedural
Agreement was applied by the Company in issuing a one day
suspension to a worker. The worker concerned has a history of
lates and absenteeism which the Company considered unacceptable
(details supplied to the Court). On the 4th October, 1985 a
meeting was held between management, the shop stewards and the
worker. Following this meeting a letter was sent to the worker
informing him that he was in breach of Article XIV of the
Procedural Agreement, that he had been warned previously and that
any future breaches of time keeping and absenteeism regulations
may lead to dismissal. A further meeting took place on 26th
August, 1986 between the Company and Union concerning the worker's
unexplained absence of 21st and 25th July, 1986. As no reasonable
explanation was given he was issued with a one day suspension.
The Union, disputed the way the Precedural Agreement was applied
and considered that the Company skipped a step in the disciplinary
procedure in issuing the worker with a one day suspension. The
Union also contends that the worker was disciplined under the
wrong Article of the Procedural Agreement and the appropriate
action should have been a verbal warning. The matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 25th November,
1986. A conciliation conference was held on 3rd December, 1986.
As no agreement could be reached the issue was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The one day
suspension on the worker has not been enforced pending the outcome
of the Labour Court hearing. A hearing was held in Carlow on 20th
January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Article XIV related only to conditions of employment
and does not have a disciplinary clause. Hence, the
Company cannot make reference to same makes it impossible
for the Union to continue to operate.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) Management reminded the worker at the meeting of 4th
October, 1985 that he had previously been warned
verbally about his breach of both the absenteeism and
timekeeping procedure and strictly speaking at that
time, a one day suspension could have been imposed
under either heading.
(ii) Management was lenient and sent the worker a written
warning which stated that he was previously warned
verbally under both headings and more importantly set
out clearly how management would react to further
breaches of either heading.
(iii) In fact the worker's attitude did not change as can be
seen from the record. Shop floor warnings continued to
be ignored by him and on 26th August, 1986, a further
meeting with management and Union took place. The
worker had no reasonable explanation for his absence on
21st and 25th July, 1986, he was issued with a one day
suspension.
(iv) Management believes that its action has been both fair
and reasonable. The worker has been given every
encouragement to conform to the same standard as his
fellow workers. He has been encouraged by floor
management to correct both his absenteeism and late
timekeeping and has chosen to ignore all advice.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having examined the documents and correspondence submitted the
Court is satisfied that the appropriate procedure of verbal and
written warnings in respect of both timekeeping and absenteeism
has been carried out by the Company which is therefore entitled to
impose a period of suspension in this particular case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.