Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD/94/484
Case Number: LCR14899
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the validity of six suspensions.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and listened carefully to the
arguments presented the Court is satisfied that the procedures
proposed in the letter dated September 14th 1994 have been adhered
to and that the suspension of the 6 employees was fair.
However, given the circumstances and difficulties which applied
at the time, and in the interest of generally developing and
improving relations within the Company the Court recommends that
the Company should not seek to recover the monies paid to the
employees.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94484 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14899
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the validity of six suspensions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns six workers who operate the kegging
production line. The Union and the Company reached agreement
in May, 1994 on a major rationalisation plan involving
redundancies and changes in work practices. An important
work practice change involved the continuous operation of the
kegging plant through staggered tea breaks and the allocation
of extra manning. The Union claimed that this facility is
available only at peak production periods while the Company
claims that the facility is available when required. The
Union's refusal to operate the facility (in accordance with
management's interpretation) after August, 1994 led to the
suspension of the six workers in September, 1994. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 14th September, 1994.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 16th September, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute in Cork on the 16th August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company suspended the workers concerned without
prior discussion with the Union committee and ignored
the agreed procedures. The Union's interpretation of
the agreement was that the kegging line operated
continuously during peak periods only. The workers
concerned co-operated with this. The dispute could have
been resolved through agreed procedures. Despite
numerous requests from the Union the Company was
unwilling to following procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Union queried management's interpretation of
the agreement on changes in production/work practices
the Company sought and received two written
clarifications from the Labour Relations Commission
(under whose auspices the agreement was brokered) in May
and June, 1994. It was confirmed that the kegging line
operates through breaks, as required, with effect from
the date of the agreement.
2. Despite numerous meetings the kegging crew refused to
operate the facility even under protest from 18th
August, 1994. The Company was left with no alternative
but to institute disciplinary procedures against the
workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and listened carefully to the
arguments presented the Court is satisfied that the procedures
proposed in the letter dated September 14th 1994 have been adhered
to and that the suspension of the 6 employees was fair.
However, given the circumstances and difficulties which applied
at the time, and in the interest of generally developing and
improving relations within the Company the Court recommends that
the Company should not seek to recover the monies paid to the
employees.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th September, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.