FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MILFORD CARE CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners recommendation IR682/00/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute centres around an accidental collision which took place on the 22nd of February, 2000, involving the worker and a female colleague. The female colleague made a complaint to management which eventually resulted in disciplinary action being taken by the Employer. The worker was given a written warning and was removed from his position of acting chef, which held a payment of £19.00 per week (24.13 Euro).
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 2nd of May, 2000, the Rights Commissioner recommended:-
" I recommend that the Union's appeal on behalf of the worker fails."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioners recommendation).
On the 9th of October, 2000, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioners recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 18th of July, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The Union does not accept that one of its members should be subjected to formal disciplinary action as a result of a simple accident. 2. In its decision to demote the worker, the Employer stepped outside the agreed disciplinary structure existing between the Union and the Employer, which only allows for the imposition of disciplinary warnings for alleged misconduct.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is a responsible employer and places extremely high level of emphasis on ensuring the safety, health and welfare of all staff members at all times.
2. All statements received in connection with the incident confirm that direct physical contact did take place between the worker and his colleague.
3. The worker was made aware at all times of all the details surrounding the allegations which were made against him.
4. The worker was acting in the role of senior chef and it was his responsibility to ensure the safety, health and welfare of those working under his supervision.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties is satisfied that the Rights Commissioners recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances and the Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioners recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th July, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.