Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD95533
Case Number: AD9579
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: AER LINGUS
- and -
A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW288/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties,
written and oral, finds that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95533 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7995
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AER LINGUS
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW288/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is a Permanent Operative Grade B in the aircraft
cleaning section in Dublin Airport. During peak periods (in
summer) it is normal to promote some workers to a higher
acting grade to supervise a number of temporary staff. The
worker was promoted to Acting Operative Grade C on 23rd
April, 1995. The worker was a member of one of two night
crews who rotate, 7 nights on and 7 nights off. He was
subsequently promoted to Acting Operative Grade D, the
highest of 4 grades.
On 6th July, 1995, the worker reported for a night shift at
22.00 hours. He subsequently left his workplace to meet his
brother at a public house near the Airport. He had a drink
there and returned to work after approximately 20 minutes,
where he was met by the Ramp Superintendent and the Apron
Supervisor. He explained his absence and returned to work.
Following a hearing on 12th July, 1995 the worker was
dismissed. The Union appealed the dismissal which was lifted
and replaced by the following:-
Demotion from Grade D to Grade A.
Removal from night shift, loss of 1.5 supplement.
Suspension without pay for 2 months.
A further appeal with Industrial Relations, Aer Lingus failed
to solve the issue. The case was then appealed to the Rights
Commissioner. A hearing was held on 12th September, 1995.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the Union
accepts the following:
1. The downgrading to Op. A. to be reviewed in
January, 1996.
2. The suspension without pay to ease forthwith and
the worker concerned to be returned to day time
shifts effectively from 18th September, 1995."
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on
19th September, 1995, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 14th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been employed for 17 years with the
Company and has an excellent record. On the night in
question he advised his Shift Leader that he was going
to meet his brother and would be absent for 20 minutes.
The Duty Supervisor had handed over the shift to the
worker at approximately 22.00 hours and, as there was no
further turnaround aircraft due in, had gone home 1.5
hours before the end of her shift. The worker decided
not to detain the Duty Supervisor to cover for him in
his absence as there was no urgency.
2. The worker's total losses for the 9 weeks suspension
amounts to £3,200. He also suffers an ongoing loss due
to the demotion in grade. The incident was a once-off
which caused no disruption.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not perform his duty as Acting Supervisor
Grade D as the Company would expect. It is not
acceptable that a supervisor in charge of a crew should
be absent on private business. The worker admits that
he had consumed alcohol, which is against Company rules.
2. The worker could have asked the Duty Supervisor to cover
for him but did not do so. The Company could have
dismissed the worker but reduced the penalty to what it
considers is fair and reasonable.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties,
written and oral, finds that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman