Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86744 Case Number: AD8710 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal, by the Union, against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning the dismisal of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
endorses the sentiments expressed by him.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86744 THE LABOUR COURT AD10/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 10 OF 1987
Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Union, against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning the dismisal of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned, who is aged 41 years, was employed by
the Company from 5th February, 1973 until his dismissal on 25th
September, 1985 on the grounds of prolonged and persistent
absences. The worker was a process operator who worked on a
four-shift pattern of 12 hour shifts. The worker's basic rate of
pay was #190.34 per week.
3. The worker has admitted that he is an alcoholic and was
affected by this for a number of years before his dismissal. The
Union acknowledged that there were substantial grounds for the
dismissal but sought that the worker be re-instated mainly on the
basis that he taken no drink for a year. The Company was not
willing to re-instate the worker as it considered it had been
reasonable in its handling of the matter. The matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
20th August, 1986 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
As the dismissal was not unfair I cannot seek to compel
the Company to take him back. The dismissal must
therefore stand.
This ought not deter him from applying to the Company
again for employment and if he does, and has remained
off the drink, I would be supporting his application on
compassionate grounds. It must be understood however
that this support imposes no obligation on the Company
under the Act.
4. On 18th September, 1986 the Union appealed that Recommendation
to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the appeal on 2nd
December, 1986 in Cavan.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The Union considers that the worker has come to terms
with his problem. He has been regularly attending
treatment centres with the assistance of the North
Eastern Health Board and Alcoholics Anonymous. In view
of the concept of alcoholism as a disease, the worker
should now be treated no less favourably than any
worker who has suffered a serious illness and be
allowed to resume his employment.
(ii) The worker had a good attendance and work record up to
1982. Since then, due to the effects of alcoholism,
his absenteeism increased substantially. He tried
unsuccessfully to overcome his problem prior to his
dismissal in September, 1985. The worker has abstained
from alcohol since his dismissal. This worker should
be given another chance to rehabilitate himself with
the Company.
(iii) The dismissal was accepted on understanding that the
Company would reconsider the worker's case after six
months. However, the Company refused to consider
reinstating the worker. Due to the time lapse involved
the worker was unable to process his case in accordance
with the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
(iv) Many large companies now have an enlightened approach
towards employees suffering from alcoholism. It is
time for the Company to adopt a similar attitude.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The worker's absence record over the last seven years
of his employment shows him to be incapable of
performing the work which he was employed to do, by
virtue of his failure to attend work on a continuous
basis.
(b) The Company gave the worker advice and assistance but
no improvement resulted. The worker had been warned a
number of times regarding his non-attendance. The
Company had no choice but to dismiss the worker.
(c) The Union's allegation, that the worker was promised by
the Company that he would be re-employed, is totally
incorrect.
(d) The Company acted very reasonably in this matter. This
is confirmed by the fact that the Union and the worker
agreed there were substantial grounds for dismissal.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
endorses the sentiments expressed by him.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
29th January, 1986 -------------------
T O'M/U.S. Deputy Chairman