FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FORBAIRT - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by Forbairt as a laboratory attendant. His work involves general labouring duties.
The dispute before the Court concerns the worker's claim that he has been the subject of unfair treatment by management over a considerable period of time culminating in his unfair removal from the overtime list for 12 months.
Management rejects the worker's claim. It argues that the worker's behaviour has been less than satisfactory and that management has tended to show leniency towards him in the circumstances.
The worker referred the complaint to the Labour Court on the 6th of August, 1997 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of October, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management's treatment of the worker is unfair. He is given the most menial of jobs and is continuously changed from one job to another for no good reason.
2. Management's reasons for removing the worker from overtime working are spurious and in the circumstances are unacceptable.
3. Management's unfair treatment of the worker has led him to conclude that management apply one set of rules when dealing with the worker concerned and a different set of rules when dealing with other workers in its employment.
4. Management's unfair treatment of the worker has caused him great stress.
FORBAIRT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has had difficulties with a large number of different individuals such as his supervisor and manager. These have led to disciplinary sanctions being taken on at least three occasions and to a considerable expenditure of management time on trying to resolve issues. There are also several letters on file in which managers made strong requests for the worker to be re-deployed away from their areas of responsibility.
2. In the normal way, it would not be sensible to expend so much management resource and pay a reasonable salary to an individual of, what transpires to be, very limited effectiveness. However, supervisors and managers in the past have tended to take a charitable view on the situation and to maintain the worker within the workforce rather than see him dismissed.
3. The worker must retire on reaching the age of 65 in January next year. He is clearly finding the work available to be unsuitable to him. He perpetually comes into conflict with his supervisor over its allocation. Clearly his views about the work and working arrangements are so strong that he found it necessary to ask for a Section 20 hearing on the matter.
4. Forbairt has not (at least in recent times) exercised its rights under a clause in the Conditions of Service of staff which states "..... an Officer may be required to retire at any time after reaching the age of 60 years". Clearly this clause was intended for use with employees of limited effectiveness, but custom and practice has resulted in the non-use of its provisions. Under the circumstances of the worker's limited effectiveness by virtue of his unwillingness to accept duties given to him, it would appear to be appropriate for Forbairt to require the worker to retire with immediate effect, as provided for in his Conditions of Service.
5. Forbairt is seeking that the Court find that the worker's claim is unreasonable and without foundation. Further it seeks that the Court should determine that the worker should retire with immediate effect, rather than await his 65th birthday.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both parties.
It is clear to the Court that for some time there have been strains in the relationship between the parties.
While arguments can be put on both sides, it is the Court's opinion, given that the claimant is due to retire in January 1998, that a resolution of this case would be best served by both sides endeavouring to work together amicably between now and his retirement date.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th November, 1997______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.