Suspension hearing

Press, 1 July 1983, Page 9

Suspension hearing

The two-week suspension of five Dunlop New Zealand, Ltd, workers last October for leaving the factory premises during working hours was the subject of an Arbitration Court hear ing yesterday in Christ-church. The advocate for the Canterbury Rubber Workers Union, Mr J. S. Hughes, submitted that the suspension was unlawful and in breach of the Canterbury Rubber Workers Collective Agreement. At the personal grievances hearing the union also claimed for penalties and arrears on behalf of the five workers, Messrs A. Faitaua, C. Hanson, V/ Dykhoff, T. Breach, and M. McGarvey.

Mr C. B. Atkinson, Q.C., appeared for Dunlop Nev; Zealand, Ltd, with him Mrs P. M. Fee.

Judge Horn and Messrs D. Jacobs and P. L. Oldham reserved their decision. The workers were suspended after they disappeared from the factory during the night of October 1. The shift foreman, Mr V. J. Webb, told the Court that between .9.45 p.m. and 10.15 p.m. he noticed the five men were not about. He did not see them again until four of

them returned later to clock out. Mr Webb accepted that some of the factory’s workers finished their programmes early on Friday nights and would spend the rest of their shift in the cafeteria, but they were expected to remain on the premises. He said he was certain that the men had left the premises.

The factory manager, Mr A. C. McEwen, said the production records for one machine had been falsified to show that it had been operating for longer than it had, although extra work, done during the previous week had covered this.

On the morning of Monday, October 4, the men were stood down at the request of Mr McEwen. A grievance committee hearing the next day found that the company had not followed the correct procedure in suspending the men and they were re-instated. The company charged them again and they were suspended for two weeks without pay from October 7 to October 21.

Mr Hughes said that the union conceded that the five men had left the premises, that some of them had gone

to a city hotel, and that some disciplinary action was inevitable. However, he claimed that neither the Canterbury Rubber Workers Collective Agreement or Dunlop’s supplementary agreeement stated that a worker could be suspended without pay, and therefore the suspensions were unlawful. He said that suspensions must be confined to cases when the union’s consent had been sought. The men would still have been paid for sitting in the cafeteria until the end of their shift. They had been prevented from working by the actions of the company and if the Court found that the company’s action had been unlawful the men were entitled to recover their two weeks wages in full. Mr Atkinson disagreed

that neither agreement allowed for suspensions. He said the agreements provided for summary dismissal or “lesser penalties.” An employer could not fine, sue, prosecute, or imprison an employee. His only options were dismissal, suspension or a warning. Mr Atkinson said that aa far as he was aware there was no decision which said that “lesser penalties" could not include suspension without pay. He said the workers had not been open and frank with their employer and committed an offence which could justify dismissal without earlier warnings.