Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93151 Case Number: LCR14041 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH FERRIES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the Company's alleged failure to allow a worker to resume work after an illness.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having regard to the Company's statement that the
worker concerned will be considered for a vacancy next season in
accordance with the normal criteria governing the employment of
temporary seasonal workers does not consider that a claim for
further compensation or consideration is warranted.
The Court therefore does not recommend acceptance of the worker's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93151 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14041
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH FERRIES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's alleged failure to allow a
worker to resume work after an illness.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a shipping company which operates passenger car
ferries on the Ireland/France route. It employs a full-time core
staff to operate its all year round business. To meet its
seasonal requirements the Company employs additional temporary
staff.
3. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on a seasonal
basis from 11th July, 1990 up to 6th August, 1992. On the 4th
August, 1992 the worker became unavailable for work following an
accident in which he injured his hand. Medical certificates were
supplied to the Company up to 21st September, 1992. The worker
contacted the Company at that time with a view to resuming work.
He was informed that there was no work available. His Union made
representations to the Company on his behalf and was also informed
that there was no work available.
4. The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The
Company declined an invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's
hearing. The worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 20 of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 19th March, 1993. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was not re-employed when he was fit to resume
work despite the fact that other workers were employed at that
time.
2. Workers with less experience and service were employed in
preference to the worker.
3. The worker lost seven weeks work as a result of the
Company's failure to re-employ him. He also considers that
his prospects for further seasonal work and a permanent job
have been jeopardised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. There was no work available for the worker when he
approached the Company. The particular vessel to which he was
attached was chartered to another Company at the end of
September, 1992. The vessel was staffed by this Company's
full-time staff and the charter company's temporary staff.
2. The Company's requirement for temporary staff is dependent
upon market conditions and varies from year to year.
3. The worker will not be treated less favourably than anyone
else as a result of his illness. The Company will have a
limited number of vacancies for temporary staff in the
forthcoming season. These will be selected in accordance with
the Company's normal practice, having regard to
qualifications, experience and past employment record with the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having regard to the Company's statement that the
worker concerned will be considered for a vacancy next season in
accordance with the normal criteria governing the employment of
temporary seasonal workers does not consider that a claim for
further compensation or consideration is warranted.
The Court therefore does not recommend acceptance of the worker's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
15th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.