Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95592 Case Number: AD9584 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ORMOND PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED (Represented by IPF) - and - A WORKER;SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Right Commissioner's Recommendation ST163/95.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company behaved in a correct
manner and accordingly has concluded that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should not be upheld.
The Court upholds the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95592 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ORMOND PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Right Commissioner's
Recommendation ST163/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of technical
documentation for the computer software industry. It
provides its services to the world's foremost software
developers and manufacturers.
2. On the 16th March, 1995 the Company received a
substantial order form one of its main customers. The
Company decided that it would need 2 x 12 hour shifts
for a period of three weeks to complete the order. The
Union claims that the worker should have been given the
opportunity to work the extra shifts before she went on
holidays. The Company rejected the Union's claim and
stated that the worker had, on previous occasions,
refused to work nights for domestic reasons. The
dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 31st
August, 1995 and in his recommendation ST163/95
recommended:-
"In all the circumstances I cannot recommend
payment for work not performed by the claimant.
The Company was in my view slightly culpable in
the matter of the enquiring from the Claimant as
to her availability in the first instance.
However, I attach no blame whatever to the Company
for its actions in relation to the later telephone
enquiry to the Claimant's residence.
In all the circumstances I recommend that the
matter be settled by payment by the Employer
without prejudice of the sum of one hundred pounds
to St. Vincent De Paul."
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company failed to offer its member the opportunity
to work the twelve hour shifts when she was available
to do so.
2. The worker is a senior member of staff and should have
been offered the extra work on her return from
holidays.
3. The Rights Commissioner found that there was a certain
validity in the worker's claim. The worker was not a
benefactor as a result of his recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no onus on the Company to contact any employee
who is on annual leave to offer them additional work.
2. The worker has always refused to work particular shifts
because there was nobody to look after her children at
night time.
3. The supervisor telephoned the worker at her home to
establish if she was available to work nights on the
extra shifts involved. Her partner stated that the
worker was not available to work nights for domestic
reasons.
4. While the worker was on annual leave she did not
contact the Company to indicate if she was interested
in the 12 hour shifts. As a result, the Company had to
make alternative arrangements. On her return to work,
she was asked by her supervisor if she was available
for overtime. The worker declined the offer.
DECISION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company behaved in a correct
manner and accordingly has concluded that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should not be upheld.
The Court upholds the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
11th December, 1995 ------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.