Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92386 Case Number: LCR13721 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FINNEGAN AND MCGOVERN LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
9. The Court notes that the Company have agreed to offer the
claimant the first option on any appropriate employment
opportunity which may arise in the Company in the future. The
Court considers this offer fair in the circumstances and should be
accepted by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92386 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13721
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: FINNEGAN AND MCGOVERN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY NOONAN & SON SOLICITORS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is situated in Navan, manufactures bar
fixtures and fittings and employs 15 workers.
3. In June, 1990 the worker went on maternity leave. On
completion of her maternity leave the worker continued to be
absent due to sick leave. Her employer contacted her on 9th
March, 1991 at her home to enquire if she was available to return
to work. The worker informed the employer that she was not
available for work at that time and that she would contact him in
a week or so.
4. There was no further communication between the worker and
employer. On 22nd April, 1992 another worker was hired to fill
the position. The worker subsequently contacted her employer and
informed him that she was now fit to resume duty. She was
informed that her position was filled and she was issued with her
P45.
5. The Union contacted the Company and the matter was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations
Officer (I.R.O) put the following proposal to the parties:
"That the worker would accept her fixed term contract on the
understanding that she would be made permanent if a permanent
post became available and that the Company would pay her #500
on an ex-gratia basis".
This proposal is acceptable to the Union. The Company is not
agreeable to the ex-gratia payment and is prepared to offer a
fixed term contract.
6. The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The
Company declined an invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. The Union then referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took
place on 3rd July, 1992. The Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker was under medical care (details supplied to
the Court) during her absence from work until she was
certified fit to resume work on 29th April, 1991.
2. The worker advised her employer in March, 1991 that she
would have to get medical clearance before returning to work
and that she would also have to arrange a child minder.
3. The Company has operated on a very informal basis and
has never provided written conditions of employment or
outlined procedures. The approach inevitably leads to
disputes of this nature. Under the circumstances the Court
is asked to recommend that the Company implement the I.R.O.'s
proposal and that the worker be given first option on an
appropriate employment opportunity which may arise in the
future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. From June, 1990 to 9th March, 1991 there was no
communication from the worker as to when she would be likely
to return to work.
2. The worker informed her employer that she would contact
him in approximately a fortnight after he visited her
enquiring about a likely return to work. The worker did not
contact the Company and the Company hired another worker to
replace her six weeks later.
3. The Company kept the worker's job open for 10 months.
When she did not make herself available for work the Company
engaged someone else. The Company is prepared to give the
worker first option if a job arises. It is not prepared to
pay compensation as it does not consider that it is owed to
the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court notes that the Company have agreed to offer the
claimant the first option on any appropriate employment
opportunity which may arise in the Company in the future. The
Court considers this offer fair in the circumstances and should be
accepted by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th July, 1992 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.H. ------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.