Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94377 Case Number: AD9456 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: J.J. LOWE HAULAGE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW93/94 concerning the disciplining and short- time work of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has
concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be
upheld. The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour of the
worker's appeal. The Court urges the Company to make every effort
to implement the terms of the recommendation in full at the
earliest opportunity.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94377 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
J.J. LOWE HAULAGE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CW93/94 concerning the disciplining and short-
time work of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. J.J. Lowe Haulage Ltd. is a small company working out of
Bray and employs 20 people. Its main work centres
around contract hauling for large companies. The worker
has been employed for a number of years as a driver.
2. In October, 1993, the worker sought a pay slip outlining
his basic pay, overtime and expenses. The Company
maintain that the worker's attitude had become
increasingly truculent and aggressive and led to
incidents at the premises of three customers. Following
these, the worker was put on a three day week and given
a written warning. The worker referred the dispute to a
Rights Commissioner and hearings were held on 16th May,
1994 and 23rd May, 1994. The Rights Commissioner in his
recommendation CW93/94 recommended:-
"that the worker accepts the present situation and
that the Company restores him to full-time work
when appropriate contracts are available".
3. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on 12th July, 1994.
The Court heard the appeal on 2nd August, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner wrongly recommended that the
worker continue to suffer the penalty of short-time
indefinitely pending appropriate contracts being
available.
2. The availability of contracts was not a genuine factor
in the worker being put on short-time.
3. Extra staff were recruited at the same time as the
worker was put on short-time.
4. No other worker was laid-off or put on short-time
working arising from a shortage of contracts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's unacceptability in certain companies which
form the bulk of the Company's work means that there is
a limited number of jobs available for him. Unless the
Company gets new contracts, it is unlikely that the
worker will resume a five-day week in the foreseeable
future.
2. The worker refused to carry out a particular job,
despite the fact that he had already been given a
written warning for unacceptable behaviour.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has
concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be
upheld. The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour of the
worker's appeal. The Court urges the Company to make every effort
to implement the terms of the recommendation in full at the
earliest opportunity.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.M. ____________
Chairman