Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88488 Case Number: LCR12016 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the termination of the worker's employment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that there was no unfairness in the way the
Company treated this employee. Furthermore, there are no
vacancies for electricians in the Company. The Court does not
therefore recommend that his claim for re-employment be conceded.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88488 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12016
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the termination of the worker's employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company in January, 1979 as a
temporary electrician. On 4th March, 1981 he was appointed to the
regular staff and joined the Company's Welfare Scheme for Regular
Wages Staff. This scheme provides for a number of benefits
including sickness benefit and early retirement benefit. In
August, 1981 the worker went on sick leave. He returned to work
in February, 1982 and worked for over six consecutive months
without certified illness, thus achieving a clear illness record
for the purposes of the Welfare Scheme. However, on 6th
September, 1982 the worker again went on sick leave and did not
return to work before the end of the six months provided for by
the scheme. The Company accordingly offered him the options
available under the early retirement scheme and the worker chose
to take thirteen weeks' unpaid leave followed by automatic
retirement if he did not return to work during the period. On
expiry of the thirteen weeks he was paid the lump sum gratuity due
to him under the scheme and retired with effect from 10th June,
1983. In February, 1986 the worker applied for re-employment with
the Company. However, no position was made available to him. The
worker sought reinstatement on the grounds that his condition had
been taken advantage of at the time his employment was terminated.
The Company rejected this claim and refused to attend a Rights
Commissioner's hearing. The worker, therefore, referred his case
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and undertook to be bound by the decision of
the Court. A Court investigation into the matter was held on 18th
August, 1988.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was suffering from a psychiatric disability
and was not able to manage his affairs at the time the Company
was in contact with him (details supplied to the Court). He
was on major tranquillisers at that time, and also during the
period he worked between the two periods of sick leave.
2. Although the worker is a qualified electrician and only
thirty five years of age his prospects for future employment
are slim because of his being retired on grounds of ill health
as he cannot give his employment with the Company as a
reference.
3. The worker feels that the Company took full advantage of
the situation at the time due to the nature of his illness.
4. Because of this situation the worker is now being denied
the right to work. As an Irish citizen he is entitled to a
little more respect than has been shown.
5. There are people at present employed by the Company who
are attending a doctor and have been on medication for many
years. There is also a case of a person being sacked and
subsequently re-employed by the Company. The Company is
therefore operating double standards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was retired in accordance with the terms of
the Welfare Scheme which covers all regular wages staff. The
procedures set out by that scheme were followed at all times
and are uniformly and universally applied throughout CIE/Irish
Rail. There are therefore no grounds for re-instating the
worker.
2. The Company believes that during the course of his
illness the worker was treated with care and consideration.
He was notified of the situation by letter each time his sick
leave was due to expire and on three occasions the letters
were delivered by hand so that any problems could be fully
discussed. On the suggestion of the worker's own specialist
the Chief Medical Officer agreed that the worker could return
to work while still in residence at the hospital in order to
facilitate his recovery. The worker opted for the maximum
entitlement to sick leave.
3. A number of employees who retired on ill health under
the terms of the scheme subsequently contested their
retirement. One case was brought to a Rights Commissioner who
recommended that the Company acted correctly under the terms
of the Welfare Scheme and that the dismissal was not unfair.
This recommendation was upheld on appeal to the Labour Court
(AD8687 refers).
4. 4. There are 54 electricians who have had previous craft
experience at Inchicore works on the Company's waiting list
for further employment. Only four electricians were employed
since the worker applied for further employment and that was
only for a period of 5 months. Five apprentices complete
their time next month and will be added to this list. Already
over one hundred and forty employees have left the Company's
service through voluntary severance and natural wastage and
none has been replaced. Five of these positions were
electrician posts.
5. The Company does not give references as such, but rather
a statement of employment is provided where requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that there was no unfairness in the way the
Company treated this employee. Furthermore, there are no
vacancies for electricians in the Company. The Court does not
therefore recommend that his claim for re-employment be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th September, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman