FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR 6380/01.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was on Jury duty for two cases over a three week period from 22nd April to 8th May 2001. The Union sought payment for the worker’s loss of rest days or alternative rest days. The Union also sought a day-off prior to the worker’s jury duties as he had completed eight days consecutive duties alternating between jury service and bus driving. The Company refused both requests. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation . The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:
“On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties I find no reason to uphold the worker's claim”- (The worker was named in the Recommendation.)
- On the 10th of May, 2002, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint on the 3rd of September , 2002.
- On the 10th of May, 2002, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint on the 3rd of September , 2002.
3. 1. The worker received no compensation from anyone for loss of rest days.
2. The worker was performing his civic duty as requested by the state, Bus Atha Cliath should have facilitated the worker with payment for his loss of rest days or alternative rest days.
3. The cases the worker was involved in were of a serious nature and required his total attention and concentration in order to ensure that the matters being deliberated on were addressed properly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no onus on Dublin Bus to pay the worker for jury days when he was not due to work.
2. The worker was paid the appropriate payment on the days that he was rostered to work and days he served on the Jury.
3. The Company has fulfilled its obligations under both the agreement it has with the Trade Unions and under the Juries Act.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is correct in this case.
The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
05th September, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.