Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89916 Case Number: LCR12730 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRITISH MIDLAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
9. In the light of the evidence submitted the Court accepts that
the Company acted in a reasonable manner and finds no grounds on
which it could recommend concession of the worker's claim that he
be re-instated to his former position.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89916 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12730
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BRITISH MIDLAND LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a ramp
worker on 5th April, 1989 at Dublin Airport. The duties of ramp
worker entails loading and unloading luggage, cargo and mail from
aircraft. The job involves extensive driving of vans, trucks and
push back tugs in confined conditions airside at the airport as
well as working with airport equipment such as toilet and water
bowsers and ground power units for the aircraft. The ramp worker
is responsible for the ground handling and timely turnaround of
Company aircraft.
3. On the 26th May, 1989 the worker reversed a baggage float into
an aircraft engine, which necessitated the aircraft being grounded
temporarily. The Company carried out an investigation following
which the worker received a written warning.
4. On the 2nd October, 1989 the worker drove a tractor into the
wing of an aircraft which resulted in the aircraft being grounded.
An investigation was carried out following which the worker
received a final written warning and a 3 day suspension. He was
also suspended from driving duties while the investigation was
being carried out. The Company decided to enquire further into
the reasons for the accidents and it was of the opinion that the
worker may have had trouble in judging distance. The Company
requested the worker to have his eyesight tested. The worker
submitted a certificate from his local G.P. dated 6th October,
1989. The Company, on receipt of this report decided to seek
further medical advice. The worker agreed to attend for
examination in London by the British Airports Authority Chief
Medical Officer (C.M.O.) on 20th October, 1989. The C.M.O. in his
report stated inter alia that the worker was not fit to drive
airside at airports and recommended that he be allocated
alternative duties.
5. The worker's employment was subsequently terminated on medical
grounds on 25th October, 1989. The worker appealed this decision
and provided a further ophthalmic exam report. The workers
appeal was rejected by Company on 6th December, 1989.
6. The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation, but the Company declined an
investigation. The worker then referred the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on 26th January, 1990. The worker agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker concerned was previously employed in a similar
capacity by Aer Lingus on a six month contract in 1988. Prior
to taking up employment he had to undergo a rigorous medical
examination. He was successful, duly recruited and carried
out his duties in a satisfactory manner for the duration of
the contract.
2. The driving accidents which occurred were not the result
of the worker's eyesight. In the incident on the 26th May,
1989 the baggage float was overloaded and his view impaired
(details supplied to the Court). Regarding the 2nd October,
he was driving a particular vehicle when his attention was
distracted by a colleague and grazed the top of the wing of
the aircraft. The particular vehicle which he was driving
that day has since been withdrawn from service as a former
workmate was involved in a similar accident while driving the
same vehicle.
3. Following the worker's dismissal he visited an eminent
consultant ophthalmologist who examined him and having regard
to the circumstances sought time to reflect before preparing
an assessment. In his assessment the ophthalmologist stated
that, in his opinion, the worker is quite fit to hold a
driving job such as at the airport and that since the worker's
squint is long standing he suffers no disability from using
mainly his left eye. He also went on to mention that many
outstanding sportsmen have been uniocular but that this did
not affect their judgement of depth and distance.
4. The worker concerned is a good honest and reliable worker.
It is unreasonable that he should lose his livelihood under
such circumstances. His loss of employment in this manner
seriously reflects on his job prospects for the future even if
this was not the intent.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Driving airside at an airport requires operating a variety
of bulky and cumbersome vehicles, negotiating moving
stationary and refuelling aircraft. The job entails
constantly having to position vehicles close to aircraft
fuselage and following complex coloured lighting systems
around the airport.
2. The Company referred the worker to an independent
occupational health specialist who understands the functions,
duties and demands of ramp workers. He recommended that the
worker here concerned not be allowed to drive airside. In the
interest of safety of all concerned the Company had no option
but to implement the doctor's recommendation.
3. The Company considered the worker for other positions but
he did not meet the specifications for the limited number of
jobs on offer. Given all the circumstances the Company had no
choice but to terminate his employment on health grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. In the light of the evidence submitted the Court accepts that
the Company acted in a reasonable manner and finds no grounds on
which it could recommend concession of the worker's claim that he
be re-instated to his former position.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
31st January, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.