FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No RC/783/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a decision by the Company not to re-employ a former employee when he re-applied for a position with the Company in July, 1997.
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as an industrial cleaner on the 15th February, 1991. In March, 1997 the worker was granted special leave. He returned to work on the 15th April, 1997. At the end of April, 1997 the worker requested further unpaid leave of absence which management claims was refused.
However, the worker states that permission was granted by his supervisor for unpaid leave from 30th May, 1997 to 3rd July, 1997. When he returned and reported for duty the Company declined to re-employ him.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and hearings took place on the 4th December, 1997 and the 4th February, 1998. The Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that no dismissal took place".
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16th March, 1998 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 16th June, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given permission for unpaid leave by his supervisor from the 30th May 1997 to 3rd July, 1997 and was informed that he would get his job back.
2. The Company has refused to re-appoint the worker despite the fact that it has recruited many new employees at its various sites.
3. The worker rejects the Company's assertions that he left his employment on the 30th May, 1997.
4. The worker had an excellent employment record with the Company from 1991 and cannot understand why the Company has refused to re-employ him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has always endeavoured to be flexible in granting employee requests for annual leave or unpaid leave having regard to the current work requirements and staffing levels.
2. The worker concerned left the Company on the 30th May, 1997. His supervisor completed the necessary forms and he was subsequently issued with his P45.
3. The worker left the Company's employment of his own volition to pursue alternative employment outside the country.
4. The Company reserves the right to deny requests for leave of absence and to appoint employees as it considers appropriate.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties the Court concurs with the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd June, 1998______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.