FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Transfer of an employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed at the General Hospital, Tullamore, as a hospital attendant/porter. Following an allegation by a female patient and a subsequent investigation by management, the worker was assigned to non-patient care duties. He was issued with a final written warning.
The Union claims that the worker's punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence.
Management claims that it had no alternative but to move the worker to other duties following the allegations of misconduct.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 21st of May, 1999 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of June, 1999 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th of September,1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The actions taken by management has caused the worker and his family great stress and has resulted in financial loss for the employee.
2. Remarks made to the patient were no more than "harmless banter" which is part and parcel of the relationship between patient and care staff.
3. The worker vehemently denies any allegation of misconduct. He should be restored to his portering duties and be compensated accordingly.
4. Management have treated the worker harshly. The worker has twenty-five years' service, with an excellent disciplinary record.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management had no alternative but to remove the employee from his portering duties following a complaint from a patient.
2. The worker can consider himself fortunate that a sterner approach was not adopted which could have resulted in the termination of his employment.
3. Management conducted a thorough investigation into the allegations of misconduct and is satisfied that the worker had a case to answer.
4. Management has lost confidence in the worker's ability and suitability for future involvement in direct patient care.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties. Based on these submissions the Court is satisfied that the management action is not unreasonable in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th September, 1999______________________
L.W./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.