FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST PATRICK'S COLLEGE, MAYNOOTH - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim by the Union for the reinstatement of a worker and compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns a worker who was employed as a security officer on a six months fixed term contract which commenced on the 4th January, 1996 and was due to expire on the 30th June, 1996. On the 24th June, the worker was informed that his contract was being terminated. He left the post with the agreement of the College on the 26th June. The worker was replaced shortly after leaving the employment. The worker who replaced him was also appointed to a fixed term contract but was subsequently appointed to a permanent post. The Union claimed that the worker concerned was unfairly treated and sought his reinstatement together with appropriate compensation. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and two conciliation conferences were held in November, 1996 and February, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th of April, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 12th of May, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed without just cause. He was advised that he was being made redundant yet another worker was appointed to replace him.
2. The claimant had an excellent record in the employment (details to the Court). He was given to understand that his post at the College was secure and took on extra domestic commitments on that basis.
3. Following a three months probationary period the worker was informed that he was making good progress. There were no complaints about his work.
4. The worker understood that his post was terminated through redundancy. He requested, and was granted leave to finish early in order to avoid the possibility of any untoward incident happening on one of his shifts creating the suspicion that he was careless in his final days in the employment.
5. The worker was reduced from being paid £200 p.w. nett to receiving social welfare payments.
6. The worker had been told that he would be employed on a fixed term contract pending the "filling of a permanent post of Security Officer by open competition". This did not occur as another worker was in the post at the time it was filled. The worker has been treated in a most unjust and unfair manner. He suffered not only a financial loss but a loss to his reputation. The Union seeks his reinstatement and appropriate compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was appointed to a fixed term contract to fill a vacancy, created by the death of a security officer,which was eventually to be filled by open competition. This was accepted by the Union.
2. The College wrote to the claimant on 24th of June notifying him that his employment would terminate on 30th June. The worker indicated on 26th June that he did not wish to continue his employment until the 30th June as he had an offer of employment from a local taxi company. This was acceptable to the College. The worker terminated his own employment on the 26th June.
3. The Union, at a meeting with Management on 1st July, 1996 indicated that it had no difficulty with the termination of the worker's employment, on condition that the post was filled.
4. Neither the claimant nor his Union raised any issue relating to the ending of his employment until August,. 1996. By this time another worker was appointed to the post on a temporary basis on foot of an agreement reached with the Union.
5. In December, 1996 Management informed the Union in writing that it would shortly advertise the permanent post. The worker did not apply for the vacant post. It was subsequently filled on a permanent basis from March, 1997 following open competition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written submissions and the additional evidence given at the hearing the Court has concluded that the claimant was unfairly treated and accordingly recommends that the College pay him a sum of £1,000 compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th May, 1997______________________
T O'D/U.S.Evelyn Owens
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.