FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR3267/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute is a claim by the Union on behalf of an employee for compensation for the loss of a pair of spectacles. The employee claims that he left his spectacles in the refuse truck in which he worked on the 30th of December, 1999. When he resumed duty after illness and a four week strike period his spectacles were missing.
The Union referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner found that the loss of the spectacles was the employee's responsibility and he recommended as follows on the 16th of March, 2001:
"Recommendation
I Recommend that (the worker) accepts the council position in this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 11th of April, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 12th of October, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee cannot accept the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation as to do so would exonerate the Council from its responsibility.
2. The claimant believed that it was safe to leave his spectacles in the truck as he had done so for a considerable period of time.
3. The claimant was not aware that he was about to become ill and would be absent from work for some time. Had he been so aware, and proceeded to consciously leave his spectacles in the truck, he would have to at least share some of the responsibility.
4. The claimant believes that the Council bears the greater responsibility and that the loss of his spectacles should be covered by the Council's insurance.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As soon as the Council was made aware of the loss of the spectacles in March, 2000, it commenced enquiries. As the truck was returned to the hire company on the 31st of December, 1999, the Acting Town Overseer, who had removed all items from the truck and secured them under lock and key in his office, was contacted. He confirmed that there were no spectacles in the truck.
2. The hire company was contacted and requested to check its records. The company advised the Council that no spectacles had been found.
3. The Council's insurance company was contacted but it notified the Council that the insurance policy did not apply. The claimant was informed of this.
4. As a policy, the Council does not reimburse staff for the value of any loss of personal belongings. Accordingly, the Council bears no responsibility for the loss of any personal belongings.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court concurs with the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th October, 2001______________________
D.G./M.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.