FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WESSELL CABLES LIMITED. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR2567/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures low voltage energy cables at its site in Finglas. The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a machine operator for approximately thirteen years.
Since May, 1999, the worker applied on three separate occasions for positions in the Wire drawing/stranding area of the plant. On each occasion he was unsuccessful.
The Union states he was discriminated against as the successful applicants were either new employees or employees with less experience on the machines than him.
The Company states that the worker concerned was unsuccessful because of his poor attendance record. It is essential that employees who work in this particular area have a good attendance record.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 8th of January, 2001, as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts that he was not subject to unfair discrimination by the Company."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 3rd of April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is a very experienced machine operator with thirteen years experience and he has been loyal to the Company.
2. He feels he was treated unfairly by the Company when he applied for positions in the Wire area of the plant and was unsuccessful. The successful applicants were either new employees or employees with less experience than him.
3. When assessing the worker's level of attendance, the Company took account of compassionate leave, days off with permission and time off due to a accident. This is unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Wire area supplies the rest of the factory with its basic raw material. Therefore, it is essential that employees in this area have a good attendance record. Any absenteeism has a huge knock on effect on the rest of the factory.
2. The worker concerned was not selected for the positions he applied for because of his poor attendance record. The employees who were selected came with excellent recommendations regarding their competence, timekeeping and attendance record.
4. He was told on several occasions that if his attendance record improved, he would be considered for a position in the Wire area. His attendance record did not improve.
DECISION:
Careful consideration has been given to all aspects of this appeal. The Court has taken account of the furnished absenteeism record of the appellant, as requested by the Court. The Court is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld. The Court notes that this recommendation included a reference to the committment of the company to review the suitability of the appellant for a position in the Wire Area if his attendance record improved.
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd May, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.