Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93483 Case Number: AD9371 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HEATONS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;LAVELLE AND COLEMAN SOLICITORS |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 162/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93483 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HEATONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY LAVELLE AND COLEMAN SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 162/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to going on maternity leave in April, 1993 the worker
concerned had been employed in the cash office. She is due to
return to work on 20th September and has requested that she be
allowed to return to her cash office duties. The Company offered
the worker a position on the shop floor but stated that she could
not return to the cash office in view of her previous attendance
record (details supplied to the Court). The worker referred the
issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On the 9th August, 1993 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the worker accepts that her role in the cash
office is subject to management discretion and that she was
not unfairly deprived of her Christmas bonus".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 11th August, 1993 the worker appealed the recommendation
specifically in relation to her duties on return to work) to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 8th September, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was appointed to cash office duties by
Management. Her previous experience was in this area and she
worked in the cash office prior to going on Maternity Leave.
She suffered numerous illnesses associated with pregnancies
and she was certified as being unfit for late night duty by
her doctor. All sicknesses were beyond the worker's control.
2. It is unfair of the Company to place the worker on shop
floor duties. She is being victimised by the Company because
of her sick record. All her training related to cash office
duties and she should be allowed to resume work in this area
on the 20th September.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker attended cash office duties for a significant
amount of her time. Her unreliable attendance pattern as a
result of illness rendered her unsuitable for the cash office
duties which require consistent and reliable attendance. The
Company decided to move the worker to shop floor duties
following a doctor's certificate stating that she was not fit
for late night duties.
2. The Company cannot agree to the worker's return to cash
office duties only. While she previously worked primarily in
the cash office she also carried out other duties as
required. The worker's contract specifically stipulates that
she be flexible in relation to all duties assigned to her.
The Company's offer to allocate the worker to shop floor
duties is fair and reasonable.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
16th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.