Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87696 Case Number: LCR11480 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FALCARRAGH KNITWEAR - and - IWWU |
Claim that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends
that the worker concerned accept the Employer's offer of the next
available suitable vacancy.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87696 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11480
SECTION 20(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11480
Parties: FALCARRAGH KNITWEAR LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
(IRISH WOMEN WORKERS' BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
Background:
2. The claim concerns a worker who was first employed by the
Company in July, 1984. She was originally employed as a packer
but after a four week knitting course was promoted to knitter on
an industrial machine. The worker requested lighter duties on her
doctor's orders in August, 1985 due to her being pregnant. The
Company was unable to facilitate the worker with lighter duties
and the worker went on sick leave from August, 1985 to February,
1986. From February, 1986 to May, 1986 the worker was on
maternity leave and notified the Company of this. Due to her
health the worker had to go on sick leave from May, 1986 to 5th
August, 1986. From 7th August, 1986 the worker has been in
receipt of unemployment benefit. The worker states that in
August, 1986 she applied to the Company for her job back but was
refused. The Union claimed that the worker should be reinstated
in her job and compensated for her loss of employment. The
Company stated that the worker was not dismissed but had left its
employment in August, 1985 and that her job was and still is being
kept open for her. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and the Company did not consider there was any
dispute and did not wish to attend a conciliation conference.
4. On 3rd September, 1987 the Union referred the case to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation in accordance
with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Union agreed prior to the hearing to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 9th October,
1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) At no time did the worker request to terminate her
employment with the Company. By letter and personal
appearances and by representations of two different
Union officials it was requested that her job be kept
open. The Company by its refusal to meet the Union, by
refusing to attend conciliation conferences has
admitted the rightness of the Union's case, otherwise
they would have contested the Union's position at
direct conferences. The worker considers the Court
should recommend a measure of compensation in her
favour rather than her job back as she feels the
Company would have taken her back prior to this if they
were any way accommodating.
(ii) During April, 1986 the worker wished to claim back tax
from the Revenue Commissioners and called to the
factory to request her P.60. The Company alleged they
issued her with a P.45 in August, 1985, it later gave
an undertaking to send her a copy of same. The worker
did not receive any communication from the Company in
1985 and received a 'copy' of a P.45 issued and dated
the 9th June, 1986.
(iii) The Company maintained that the worker had severed her
connection with the Company in August, 1985
notwithstanding the representations made on her behalf
at that time and not withstanding the workers letter of
February, 1986 confirming her intention of taking
maternity leave.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The worker was last employed by the Company on 23rd
August, 1985. Prior to that she was knitting on a
hand-flat machine. She produced a doctor's note
stating that she could no longer carry out her duties
as a knitter and required a lighter job. The Company
were unable to place the worker in a lighter job as it
has only three workers employed on three operations in
its Dublin factory. The Company advised her, as soon
as she was able to resume her knitting, she could start
back immediately. The Company received only one
doctor's certificate in all the time the worker was
away.
(b) In November of 1985 the worker came and asked for her
tax forms as she wanted to claim back her tax, this was
not done immediately, and later her parents came and
demanded her tax form. The only tax form that we could
give the worker was her P.45 showing the total tax
deduction. Later we received a letter advising us that
the worker was taking maternity leave.
(c) We had no contact from the worker until she came to the
factory with her baby and asked for her tax forms. The
Company explained that it could not give her a tax form
as she had received her P.45 and the Company was not
able to give her a P.60. The Company explained the
situation and suggested that it would give her a letter
showing her earnings and tax deduction. The Company
also explained to the union official that the worker's
machine was still there and at no time was she told
that there was no vacancy for her. At no time did the
worker contact the Company about resuming work or send
in any doctor's certificate to cover the period she was
away. The Company expected her back on the date stated
on her letter, up to the present time it has no contact
with the worker since she came for her tax form.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends
that the worker concerned accept the Employer's offer of the next
available suitable vacancy.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
22nd October, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.