FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRUSS GMBH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR8731/02/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker way employed by the Company in 1988 as a jig loader. She continued in that position until April, 2000, although she worked briefly on a press machine in 1996 and a cutting machine in 1998. In 2000, the worker transferred to work on a separator machine. In January 2002, she was informed that she, along with the rest of the staff, would have to be trained on quality control (QC) checking as part of a flexibility/cross -training exercise. (The Union denies that all workers were required to undertake this training). Some weeks into the training, the worker told her supervisor that she had a long term neck and shoulder problem and that the constant bending involved in QC checking was causing her discomfort. The worker visited the Company doctor and attended physiotherapy, and she was absent for a number of months on sick leave. Despite requests to move from the QC checking, the worker claims that she was required to continue on in that work until she reached the required standard.
In March, 2002, the worker was issued with a verbal warning for failing to reach the Company's checking targets, and in April, 2002, she was issued with a written warning. The worker believed that she was being unfairly treated, and referred her case to a Rights Commissioner. His recommendation was as follows:
"I believe that the Company has been excessively hard on the claimant issuing her with warnings in respect of her work problems. I recommend that these warnings should be removed from her work record. Having regard to the length of service of the claimant and taking all aspects into account I recommend that S.I.P.T.U. and the Company should discuss and agree what job is most suitable to the claimant. The claimant's views should also be taken into account in this consideration."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 7th of November, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of March, 2003, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner did not mention reimbursement, something the Union feels is an important issue in this dispute. The worker spent a number of months on sick leave in 2002 due to the Company's insistence on keeping her working on QC checking, despite being aware that the work caused her serious discomfort.
2. The worker lost 14 days' annual leave due to the amount of sick leave she had to take, and this should also be reimbursed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company agreed to remove the warnings from the worker's record, as per the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, and also agreed to transfer her from the QC checking.
2. The Rights Commissioner made no reference to financial reimbursement in his recommendation.
3. The Company had to implement a restructuring programme to remain viable, and part of this involved moving the worker from jig loading.
DECISION:
The Court does not consider that the Company could be expected, as part of the settlement of an industrial relations dispute, to accept liability for the injuries and illness suffered by the claimant.
The Court does, however, accept that the implication of the Rights Commissioner's conclusions is that the claimant was treated unfairly. In the circumstances, the Court considers that a compensatory payment for this unfair treatment is warranted.
Accordingly, the Company should offer and the claimant should accept a payment of €1,500 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the issues now in dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th April, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.