FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GROSVENOR CLEANING SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company as a cleaner on a number of sites since 29th December, 1988. She worked on the IBM site from 5th September, 1994 until 23rd February, 1996. Following two incidents at the site (related to her alleged refusal to clean a toilet on 22nd February and leaving work early on 23rd February, 1996) the Company issued a final written warning to her on 26th February, 1996. In accordance with Contract Cleaning Joint Labour Committee (JLC) Regulations, the worker was given one month's notice of transfer to the Civil Service Commission site from 25th March, 1996. On 4th March, 1996 she was informed that she was not to report for duty at the IBM site, as the client had insisted that she no longer work on the premises. The worker remained at home from 4th to 25th March, 1996 in receipt of her normal salary. The worker reported for duty at the Civil Service Commission site on the 25th and 26th March, 1996. On 10th April, 1996 the Union informed the Company that the worker was unwilling to remain on the new contract, as by doing so, a colleague already at the site would be displaced. The worker claimed re-instatement to her previous position at the IBM site.
The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation, but the Company declined an invitation to attend. The Union then referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The type of work appropriate to the grade of cleaner is well defined. The instruction to clean a flooded toilet on 22nd February, 1996 was appropriate to janitorial duties, not to general cleaning duties. On 23rd February, 1996 the worker needed to leave work early and signed herself out at 7.30 p.m. There is no regulation which states that one cannot leave early and the worker clearly did not intend to claim payment up to the finishing time of 8.00 p.m.
2. The Company's decision to transfer the worker to the Civil Service Commission site, and by doing so, to displace another worker from that site, left the worker with no option but to absent herself from work. Management's refusal to allow her to return to work at the IBM site is tantamount to unfair dismissal. The worker should be adequately compensated for the loss of her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's employment was not terminated by the Company. She was offered alternative work with the same number of hours and pay, at the same time, on a nearby site. She was also paid for three weeks notice of the proposed relocation while she did not attend for work.
2. No member of staff is employed to work on one site only and the worker was given one month's notice of relocation, in accordance with JLC Regulations. The Company had no choice but to transfer the worker following the complaint from IBM, as it could have otherwise jeopardised a very important contract.
3. The worker was informed that she was not displacing a colleague at the Civil Service Commission site, as the worker concerned chose to work on a temporary basis only. The worker reported for duty at the site for 2 days and has since not made herself available for work. However, the Company is prepared to offer her employment on the same terms and conditions as previously enjoyed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court has concluded that the Company did not treat the claimant unfairly and, accordingly, the Union's claim must fail.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend in favour of the claimant and urges her to re-consider the Company's offer to re-employ her.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
18th July, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.