Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95196 Case Number: AD9545 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DELTA SECURITY - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 406/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having heard the parties, finds that the claimant was
given no specific reasons as to why he should be moved from the
hospital.
Further the Court finds it unacceptable that the Company allowed
the hospital to invoke Clause 25 of the contract without giving
satisfactory reasons why it should be implemented, advising the
employee and giving him a reasonable opportunity to reply to any
charges made.
The Court, given all the circumstances, decides that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld. In the matter of
compensation, the parties should discuss and agree an amount of
compensation in respect of the loss of earnings sustained by the
claimant for the period during which he has been removed from his
supervisory position on the Beaumont site.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95196 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DELTA SECURITY
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. 406/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a security officer in September, 1992. In recent times he
worked as a supervisor on the Beaumont Hospital site.
Following an incident on the 18th November, 1994 the worker
was demoted and moved to another site (details supplied to
the Court). The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly
treated and referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd February, 1995
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that, effective
from the first Monday following receipt of my
recommendation the worker should re restored to his
position as supervisor on the Beaumont Site. I further
recommend that the worker be compensated for the loss of
earnings sustained by him for the period during which he
had been removed from his supervisory position at the
Beaumont site."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
Subsequently both parties 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 4th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 18th November the worker was on duty at the
Beaumont Hospital site on the 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.
shift. A worker who was due on the 8.00 p.m. to 8.00
a.m. shift rang in sick. The worker concerned did not
leave his position until 8.20 p.m. when he was assured
by the night supervisor that adequate cover was provided
for the night shift. The worker was subsequently
requested to attend a meeting at Head Office at which he
was advised that his action amounted to disloyalty and
that his post was under review. On the 23rd November
the worker was demoted and moved to another site. The
worker concerned had an unblemished employment record
with the Company. He has been treated in a most unjust
manner.
2. The Union accepts the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation that the worker be restored to his
position at the Beaumont Hospital site. However, the
worker must be suitably compensated for losses incurred
as follows:-
1. Reduction in Salary.
2. Substantial travel costs arising out of his
transfer to other sites.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management accepts that the worker concerned had a very
good employment record with the Company, and other than
some minor admonishments he was commended by clients for
his performance at every assignment at which he worked.
However, in November, 1994 the Hospital's Chief Security
Officer advised the Company that he had lost confidence
in the worker's efficiency and his ability to supervise.
Under Clause 25 of the Hospital's conditions of contract
there was a requirement that he be removed from that
location and replaced by another supervisor. The
Company had no option but to comply. It was not
managements wish or intention to transfer the worker
from the Beaumont site. However it has no authority to
transfer him back to that site. The Company had no
control over the financial losses incurred by the
worker.
2. The worker accepted a post of Security Officer, with the
possibility of becoming a supervisor, at Our Ladys
Hospice, Harolds Cross. He has stated that he is happy
in this position. The Company has no control over the
worker's financial loss related to travel to and from
work. In the security industry it is a condition of
employment, and an occupation hazard, that a Security
Officer has to go where the work is located.
DECISION:
The Court, having heard the parties, finds that the claimant was
given no specific reasons as to why he should be moved from the
hospital.
Further the Court finds it unacceptable that the Company allowed
the hospital to invoke Clause 25 of the contract without giving
satisfactory reasons why it should be implemented, advising the
employee and giving him a reasonable opportunity to reply to any
charges made.
The Court, given all the circumstances, decides that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld. In the matter of
compensation, the parties should discuss and agree an amount of
compensation in respect of the loss of earnings sustained by the
claimant for the period during which he has been removed from his
supervisory position on the Beaumont site.
The Court so decides.
~
SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR COURT
19th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
NOTE
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR. TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.