Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89553 Case Number: LCR12541 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;DUBLIN NO. 17 BRANCH |
Appeal by the Union for the re-employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is of the view that the Company did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances. The Court accordingly does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim for re-employment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89553 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12541
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(DUBLIN NO. 17 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union for the re-employment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
the services department in 1969 and subsequently moved to the
production department in 1970. In 1977 the Company warned the
worker regarding his high level of sick leave in the 1976/77 leave
year. There was an improvement in 1977/78 but from 1979 to 1983
his sick leave record deteriorated. On 9th May, 1983 the Company
imposed sick leave restrictions whereby the worker would not be
paid for certified or uncertified sick leave. The worker was also
warned that if there was no improvement in his sick leave record
the Company would consider serious disciplinary action including
dismissal. In November, 1986 the worker tendered his resignation
but was persuaded to withdraw it by the Company. In August, 1987
the worker again raised the issue of resignation and resigned with
effect from 28th August, 1987. On 9th September, 1987 the worker
sought re-employment with the Company but was rejected on the
grounds that he had resigned voluntarily and had received an ex
gratia payment from the Company. The Union claims that the
worker's poor sick record was mainly due to personal and domestic
problems (details given to the Court) and is making an ad
misericordium appeal for the re-employment of the worker. The
Company claims that it has considered the worker's case carefully
and is not in a position to offer re-employment. On 8th August,
1989 the Union requested a Labour Court hearing under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The hearing took place on 28th
September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers poor attendance record and subsequent
resignation were related to personal/domestic problems. Due
to the mounting pressure of these problems the worker resigned
on 28th August, 1987 as he felt that this was the only answer
to his problems. However with the benefit of counselling a
more satisfactory solution to the problem could have been
found.
2. In 1987 the Company introduced a personnel policy called
Trim '87 which involved job flexibility, job mobility, leave
of absence and voluntary severance. The worker applied for
voluntary severance but this was opposed by his immediate
boss. The worker was therefore left with no other option in
his circumstances but resign. The application of the leave of
absence section of Trim '87 together with a bit of imagination
could have provided options other than resignation for the
worker.
3. The worker has made every effort to seek alternative
employment but has failed. Judging from the present level of
unemployment his chances of obtaining alternative employment
are slim. The Company has recruited individuals over the past
twelve months and is currently interviewing for positions in
the section where the worker was formerly employed.
4. This is a sad and tragic case. The worker concerned is
trying to resolve his major domestic and financial problems.
Bearing in mind the suffering the worker has experienced, the
Union requests the Court to recommend that he be re-employed
by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker resigned of his own free will. Every effort
was made by the Company to persuade him away from this course
of action but all were unsuccessful. He received an ex gratia
payment on resignation from the Company.
2. The workers performance was average but he had a very bad
attendance record. The worker was warned about his attendance
record and any arrangements which were made by the Company to
help him did not work.
3. Since his resignation the worker has made several attempts
to gain re-employment with the Company. His case has been
very carefully examined. However the facts are that the
worker was an employee with a history of disciplinary problems
relating to attendance and his resignation was entirely
voluntary. There is no suitable employment in the Company for
the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is of the view that the Company did not act unreasonably in the
circumstances. The Court accordingly does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim for re-employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
13th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.