Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9461 Case Number: AD9428 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SECURICLEAN IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 461/93 concerning the workload of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court considers that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9461 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2894
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SECURICLEAN IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 461/93 concerning the workload of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Securiclean Ireland Limited is a Company which operates
in the contract cleaning industry and employs
approximately 350 people. The worker commenced
employment with the Company on 1st May, 1987, and has
worked since then on site at St. Mary's Hospital,
Phoenix Park as a cleaning operative.
2. On 3rd November, 1993, the Union wrote to the Company
detailing the worker's grievances. On 22nd November,
1993, the worker placed a picket on the gates of the
hospital. The worker was invited by the Company to
cease her action and to come and talk about her
grievances. When she refused this invitation she was
suspended on full pay pending a meeting with her Union
official. Following a number of unsuccessful attempts
to encourage the worker to cease her action and attend a
meeting to discuss her grievances she was suspended
without pay.
3. On 25th November, 1993, the worker attended a meeting
with the Company and outlined two grievances;
(a) she wanted to work Sundays and public holidays, and
(b) she wanted to work only in one section of the
hospital (the Ambulance Centre) for the full
duration of her daily three hour shift.
The Company agreed to sort out the Sunday and public
holiday situation and to assess her work requirements.
The worker ceased the picket and chose to stay at home
until the next meeting. On 30th November, 1993, the
Company met with the worker and informed her that it
felt the work allocated to her was achievable within the
designated time. Agreement could not be reached on this
issue and the matter was referred to a Right's
Commissioner.
4. A hearing took place on 6th December, 1993 and the
Rights Commissioner in his recommendation (B.C. 461/93)
issued on 20th December, 1993 recommended:-
"1. That the worker should return to her normal job and
carry it out to the best of her ability.
2. Contemporaneous with the worker returning to her
work the parties to agree for an independent third
party to study the level of work involved and to
make a report, on receipt of this report the
parties to consider its implications."
(The worker's name was mentioned in the Recommendation).
5. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court on 28th January,
1994. The Court heard the appeal on 31st March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is being exploited by virtue of her work
allocation as compared to her colleagues.
2. The worker has been discriminated against by being
excluded from Sunday and Bank Holiday work.
3. The time available to complete the work schedule is
insufficient.
4. The reason the worker chose not to accept offers of
alternative work made by the Company was that there was
a principle involved which had to be addressed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did all in its power to settle the dispute.
2. The Company offered the worker alternative work.
3. The time allotted is sufficient to complete the work
schedule.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court considers that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th April, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Chairman