Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86706 Case Number: LCR10826 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Company was left with no
option but to dismiss the worker concerned and does not therefore
recommend re-employment, re-instatement or any form of
compensation.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86706 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10826
CC861110 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10826
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was first employed by the Company on 1st
June, 1964 as an operative. He was absent due to illness on a
number of occasions in the two years 1964 to 1966. The Company
decided to terminate his employment in August, 1965. The worker
appealed this decision successfully and had his probation period
extended to 31st March, 1966. He was eventually established in
July, 1966. From then until his employment was terminated on 31st
May, 1985, he had a number of absences due to illness (details
supplied to the Court). From 31st July, 1984 to 31st May, 1985 he
was absent from work. The Company received no medical
certificates for him from 1st December, 1984 with the exception of
two weeks from 12th January, 1985. He was seen by the Company's
Chief Medical Officer on a number of occasions over the years.
After visits on 28th September, 1983, 1st November, 1983 and 9th
November, 1984, the Chief Medical Officer expressed the opinion
that he was fit to resume duty. The worker was requested to
furnish a consultants report to support his absence. The Company
wrote to the worker on 20th May, 1985 following a meeting between
Management, his shop stewards and himself. In the letter he was
advised that his
employment would be terminated on 31st May, 1985. He appealed
this decision unsuccessfully through the Company's internal
conciliation machinery. The issue was then referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 25th June, 1986. A
conciliation conference took place on 29th August, 1986. As no
agreement was reached, both sides agreed to refer the matter to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour
Court hearing took place on 23rd October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) While accepting that the workers attendance was bad, he
could have been treated more leniently by the Company,
he could have been faciliated under the Company's
current severance scheme or the Pension Scheme which has
a provision for early retirement due to ill health.
(ii) The workers sick leave arose due to feeling unwell and
being advised by his own G.P. not to attend work. This
was borne out by medical evidence and attendance at both
Jervis Street and Mater Hospitals.
(iii)The worker has no recollection of being advised by the
Chief Medical Officer that he was fit to resume duty.
In fact he was under the impression that the doctor
thought he should get early retirement because of ill
health. He was also attending the hospital at that time
and did not feel fit for work.
(iv) The worker asked the hospital to forward a medical
report to the Company and he assumed that that they had
done so.
(v) He considered that it was not necessary to furnish
medical evidence as the last certificate he received
from his G.P. was an "open certificate."
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker concerned was familiar with the procedures
for submission of medical certificates as they were
generally submitted by him on time.
(b) The Chief Medical Officer advised on a number of
occasions that in his opinion, the worker was fit to
resume duty.
(c) The worker failed to provide a medical report when
requested to do so.
(d) The worker concerned was correctly dismissed because of
his long record of absences both certified and
uncertified, and because of his unexplained and
uncertified absence in 1984/85.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Company was left with no
option but to dismiss the worker concerned and does not therefore
recommend re-employment, re-instatement or any form of
compensation.
~ Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
28th November, 1986.
M.D./J.C.