Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91209 Case Number: AD9145 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PRESS-O-MATIC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W.315/90 concerning the inclusion by the Company of authorised absences in the calculation of a worker's attendance record.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company for the control of
absenteeism takes account of all absence from work other than
planned holidays. From the Company records the Court also notes
that absences are recorded under specific headings.
Given that there can be a clear analysis of the absence records
the Court does not consider the findings of the Rights
Commissioner should be altered.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91209 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4591
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: PRESS-O-MATIC
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W.315/90 concerning the inclusion by the
Company of authorised absences in the calculation of a worker's
attendance record.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1990 the Company carried out a general review of
staff attendance records. In calculating attendance records the
Company included certified absences, authorised absences,
unauthorised absences and lates. Those workers, including the
worker concerned, whose records were a cause of concern to
management were spoken to. The worker concerned claims that he
was given to understand in 1987 that authorised absences would not
be included in his attendance record. The Company claims that the
worker cannot be treated any differently to any of the other
workers and that his authorised absences must be included in his
attendance record. No agreement was reached at local level
discussions and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner
who investigated the dispute on 1st March, 1991. He issued the
following recommendation on 7th March, 1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that he will
not be penalised for authorised absence under medical
treatment to a reasonable extent and that the Company is
entitled in the long term to consider to complete attendance
record of any employees bearing all circumstances in mind.
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The Union on 16th April, 1991 appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 17th May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In July 1990, the worker (along with other employees)
was informed by management of his absentee record for the six
months ending June 1990. He was then informed that all his
absences would be calculable for the purpose of calculating
his absence record. The worker was completely taken-aback by
this, as he had sought permission from the Company for a
portion of this time-off on the understanding given him by a
director of the Company in 1987 "that this would not be a
problem provided he sought such time-off in writing from the
Company with adequate notice". Since that time and up to
June 1990, whenever the worker sought time-off work he has
given written notice to the Company and awaited their
agreement before taking this time-off.
2. The worker believed he had a personal understanding with
the Company regarding authorised time off and he fulfilled
his part of the arrangement. He believed that when
authorised leave is granted, after the submission of adequate
written notice, no further repercussions in relation to this
leave would be suffered by him.
3. It was unfair of the Company to reprimand the worker in
July, 1990 when he believed he had an understanding with the
Company regarding authorised absences. Since July, 1990 the
worker has been afraid to take time-off because of the threat
of further procedural measures. The Company should
acknowledge the understanding reached in 1987 and there
should be no repercussions in relation to authorised
absences.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned has had an unacceptably high level
of absences over the past 6 years. Along with a number of
others, the worker was counselled by the Company in relation
to his attendance record. He was not reprimanded and no
formal warning was issued.
2. The Union subsequently disputed whether authorised
absences should be included in the record of the worker
concerned. The Company's position in relation to authorised
absences is that they are viewed as being analogous to sick
days in that both are days off given with permission under a
specific set of circumstances. The Company considers that
both should be calculable for the purposes of assessing
absenteeism. The worker concerned has not been treated any
differently from any other employee in the Company. He has
been treated in accordance with the custom and practice in
the Company and his treatment on this occasion is no
different from treatment he has received previously.
3. The Company has a good relationship with its employees
and this relationship is fostered by a reasonable attitude on
both sides. Should the Company's attitude not be
reciprocated there will have to be a more strict
interpretation of the formal rule structure and this will not
be of benefit to the employer or the employee.
DECISION:
5. The Court notes that the Company for the control of
absenteeism takes account of all absence from work other than
planned holidays. From the Company records the Court also notes
that absences are recorded under specific headings.
Given that there can be a clear analysis of the absence records
the Court does not consider the findings of the Rights
Commissioner should be altered.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th June, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman