Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94460 Case Number: AD957 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: B. MCDONNELL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation no. BC153/94.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties upholds the findings of the Rights Commissioner and
rejects the appeal of the claimant.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94460 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
B. MCDONNELL LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation no. BC153/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in electrical manufacture and
fabrication work. The worker was hired by the Company on a
temporary basis on the 15th April, 1994 to undertake
semi-skilled work. He had previously been employed by the
Company prior to being made redundant in 1992. His
employment was terminated on the 22nd April, when he had
completed just one week's work. The Union claimed that the
worker was unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 25th August, 1994
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"In the light of the above my recommendation is that
B. McDonnell Limited should pay to the worker the sum of
#250 and that this be accepted by him in full and final
settlement of this claim on the employer. With regard to
the issue of Union semi-skilled rate this is a matter
which requires to be taken up as a matter of general
principle with the employer by the Trade Union. I further
recommend that the fact that the worker and his Trade
Union have pursued their legitimate course of action
through the Rights Commissioner should not in any fashion
discriminate against the worker securing future employment
with the Company since I understand that in earlier times
he had worked with McDonnells and had a very good record
with that Company."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 2nd September, 1994 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 10th November, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties). The Company did not
attend the hearing, due to the illness of its spokesman, but
subsequently provided a written submission to the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given to understand that he would be
required for 'several months' work. His work was
satisfactory yet he was dismissed after one week. The
Company, gave spurious reasons for dismissing him i.e.
the work had "dried up". This was not the case as other
employees were subsequently recruited to do similar work
over a period of approximately 8 weeks.
2. The Union contends that the worker was dismissed
because, for reasons of personal bias, the Managing
Director did not want the worker in the employment.
3. The compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner is
inadequate. It did not take into account the potential
earnings lost i.e. 8 weeks by #190 (the semi-skilled
rate).
4. The worker refused an offer of lucrative employment in
England because he preferred to work at home. He has
been most unfairly treated. The Union is seeking
compensation in the amount of #1,500 approximately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management is completely satisfied as to the worker's
integrity and ability to carry out semi-skilled duties
within the Company. He has been re-employed on a number
of occasions since being made redundant in 1992 and his
work was very satisfactory.
2. The contract secured by the Company in April, 1994 was
very competitively priced and attracted wage rates of
#145 - #150 much lower than previously paid to semi
skilled workers. The Company was surprised that the
worker accepted work at the lower rate. It subsequently
transpired that wage rates were not discussed at
interview and the claimant had expected his old rate
(#190 per week). The Company regrets this
misunderstanding at the interview.
3. The temporary contract negotiated experienced immediate
problems and the job was suspended. The worker's
employment had to be terminated at short notice. When
collecting his wages he expressed concern that his wage
rate was #145 - #150 and not his old rate of #190.
4. When the contract was renewed another worker was
recruited since the terms of employment were not
acceptable to the claimant. There was no question of
the Company discriminating against the worker. The
Company feels that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was fair in the circumstances and has
accepted it.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties upholds the findings of the Rights Commissioner and
rejects the appeal of the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the labour court
13th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman