Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89228 Case Number: LCR12371 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for re-instatement.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submissions in this case the Court
considers that the worker in question was not unfairly dismissed
and accordingly does not recommend re-instatement. Having regard
to the existing circumstances, however, the Court recommends that
the Company consider his application for employment in the event
of there being a suitable vacancy for him.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89228 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12371
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for re-instatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was initially employed as an operative on
a seasonal basis from 1966. He became a permanent full-time
employee on 1st November, 1970.
3. From 1971/1972 up to the time of his dismissal on the 18th
April, 1986 the worker had many absences from work due to illness
(details supplied to the Court). The worker was written to and
interviewed by the Company regarding his sick-leave record on many
occasions over the years. In September, 1983 he had his
sick-leave privileges withdrawn.
4. The Company subsequently wrote to the worker concerning
further absences. He was dismissed by the Company on 16th
November, 1985 for failing to produce medical certificates for the
period 7th to 14th November, 1985.
5. Following discussions and an appeal by the Union the worker's
dismissal notice was suspended and in a letter dated the 28th
January, 1986 certain conditions were attached to his continued
employment.
6. The worker was dismissed on 15th April, 1986 because of his
failure to keep his contract on a special programme which was part
of his conditions of continued employment with the Company.
7. His case was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 24th January, 1989. A conciliation conference was
held on 2nd March, 1989. As no agreement was possible both
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
21st April, 1989.
UNION'S CASE:
8. 1. All the worker's absences were covered by medical
certificates. The absences also involve periods of
hospitalisation in respect of operations and one period as a
result of a road traffic accident.
2. The worker has many personal problems of which the Company
is well aware of. They suggested he attend a course for
treatment, but because of his circumstances he failed to turn
up for the arranged programme and he was subsequently
dismissed.
3. In September, 1986 the worker of his own volition
undertook and completed a rigid hospitalisation course of six
weeks duration for his alcoholic problem. He has not touched
a drink since and has been attending A.A. meetings regularly.
4. The worker approached the Union in August, 1988 seeking
re-instatement with the Company. The reason it took him so
long to look for his job back was that he wanted to tackle his
alcoholic problem and when he felt he could cope he approached
the Union. The Company have been and are still recruiting and
therefore the re-instatement of the worker would not cause any
problem to the Company.
5. The worker has made tremendous efforts to tackle his
problem. There is also a slim chance that he maybe reunited
with his wife and family. Being re-instated would go along
way in tilting the balance in favour of this move.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. Medical certificates were received for most of the
worker's illness over the years but on a lot of occasions they
were not received in time and he did not always comply with
regulations regarding notification when on sick-leave.
2. He was absent without medical certification from 7th
April, 1986 up to the time of his dismissal on 18th April,
1986 at a time when he was aware that he would be dismissed if
he incurred absences and uncertified sick leave. Also under
the operative grades agreement unauthorised absence from duty
may cause disciplinary action or dismissal (details supplied
to the Court). Another condition attached to the suspension
of his dismissal was that he would enter and complete an
employee assistance programme this he failed to do.