Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92562 Case Number: LCR13801 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE BREFFNI INN - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS';GROCERS' ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker while on sick-leave.
Recommendation:
4. The Court notes that the Company did not attend the hearing or
submit a written statement.
On the basis of the case presented the Court recommends that the
claimant be reinstated when he is certified as fit for work.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92562 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13801
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: THE BREFFNI INN
and
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS'
GROCERS' ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker
while on sick-leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment on the 3rd of August, 1991, at
the above licensed premises in the capacity of Senior Assistant.
Six weeks later he injured his back in the course of his duties
and having sought medical opinion was forced to take sick-leave.
He resumed work at the end of October, 1991 and worked until
April, 1992, when his back trouble recurred. He remained on
certified sick-leave when on the 10th of July, 1992, his employer
informed him of his dismissal, as a result of having been out sick
for 15 weeks. The Union is seeking the reinstatement of the
worker to the position of Senior Assistant as soon as he becomes
certified as fit for work. The worker referred the dispute to a
Rights Commissioner, but his employer refused to attend a Rights
Commissioner's investigation. He referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, on the 7th September, 1992. The Labour Court investigated
the dispute on the 12th October, 1992. The employer did not
attend and was not represented at the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker injured his back during the course of his
duties and having reported the accident, received no sympathy
from the Manager. He was asked to remain at work for the
remainder of the day although in considerable pain. At all
times during his absence the worker was certified by his
doctor as being unfit for work (details supplied to the Court)
and he has forwarded certificates to this effect to his
employer on a monthly basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court notes that the Company did not attend the hearing or
submit a written statement.
On the basis of the case presented the Court recommends that the
claimant be reinstated when he is certified as fit for work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
27th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.