Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92404 Case Number: AD92216 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KENILWORTH PRODUCTS - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation B.C. 7/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed
in their oral and written submissions and the reasoning of the
Rights Commissioner considers that the complainant should be
offered the next vacancy for which he is suitably qualified
(including general operative work).
He should be paid compensation in the sum of #200.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92404 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD21692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KENILWORTH PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation B.C. 7/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which employs approximately 75 people is involved
in the manufacture/printing of self-adhesive labels. The worker
concerned commenced employment with the Company in a temporary
capacity in February, 1989. The worker's employment was
terminated in late September, 1991. Initially the worker
concerned performed various duties in the fix-a-form area of the
factory before he was assigned to the back numbering machine.
During the period of the worker's employment he was laid-off on
several occasions for a number of weeks. Subsequent to the
dismissal of the worker in September, 1991, local level
discussions took place following which the parties agreed as
follows:
(a) The worker concerned would be considered for any
permanent position that might arise.
(b) The Company would not take on any outside person to work
on the back-numbering machine without giving the first
option to the worker concerned.
(c) The Company would not transfer an existing employee to
the back-numbering machine and replace that person in
his/her original position by an outsider without the
worker concerned being offered the position on the
back-numbering machine.
The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed and that the
Company has employed people in breach of the agreement reached in
September, 1991. The Company rejected the claim. The worker
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner on 25th May, 1992
recommended as follows:
"In the light of the above I conclude that the worker was not
unfairly dismissed and I recommend accordingly.
I further recommend that the Company implement with integrity
the agreement reached in September, 1991 as set out above at
the very earliest possible moment".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
worker who appealed it to the Labour Court on 3rd July, 1992 under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 2nd October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were never any complaints from management in respect
of the worker's ability to do his work or the worker's
attendance record. On a number of occasions he was asked by
management to train workers on the back-numbering machine.
Some of the workers trained are now permanently employed by
the Company.
2. The worker was initially employed as a general worker and
subsequently moved to the back-numbering machine. He is
qualified to do general operative duties as well as quality
control work.
3. The Company has recently employed a worker who is engaged
in quality control and finishing work on the rewinding
machine. Both of these functions were carried out by the
worker concerned when he was employed by the Company.
4. When the worker commenced employment he was told that he
would go on the back-numbering machine at a later date.
5. The Company should honour the agreement of September,
1991. It is obvious by the Company's actions that they never
intended to implement the agreement. Suitable vacancies have
arisen in the Company and the worker concerned should be
re-instated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was initially employed by the Company he
was tried in jobs other than back-numbering. He failed to
satisfy the Company's standards.
2. The Company are committed to re-employing the worker
should demand for back-numbering require the employment of
additional staff. The Company are prepared to honour that
commitment. Since the worker's employment was terminated this
demand has not arisen.
3. Since the worker's departure from the Company the Jet
numbering operation has been transferred out of the fix-a-form
area and is now done as required by the rewind inspection
staff, all of whom are permanent and were all employed before
the worker commenced employment with the Company.
4. The Company has been forced to let go other workers since
September, 1991 due to a lack of orders.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed
in their oral and written submissions and the reasoning of the
Rights Commissioner considers that the complainant should be
offered the next vacancy for which he is suitably qualified
(including general operative work).
He should be paid compensation in the sum of #200.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________
4th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.