FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PUNCH INDUSTRIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Ir7890/02/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who has been employed by the Company for the past four years. He was initially employed in the Manufacturing Department but was transferred to the Packaging Department on the grounds that he was unsafe working in the Manufacturing Department. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 24th February, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
Findings:
".............I am satisfied that the Company was entitled to move him from the Manufacturing Department when it did. Indeed, given that every employer is under a clear legal obligation to do all it can to prevent workplace accidents, it seems to me that moving the worker could be seen as something that the Company had to rather than chose to do.
As regards the worker's claim for loss of earnings, I note that he has retained his former rate of pay and that the only losses that he may have suffered relate to overtime earnings. However, it seems to me that such losses must have been limited and I am not recommending that he receive any compensation for them.....
Recommendation:
Accordingly, I recommend that the worker and SIPTU should accept the above findings regarding his transfer and his claim for loss of earnings".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
On the 18th March, 2003 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on the 11th June, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker commenced employment he was informed that he would be working in the Manufacturing Department and would not be requested to work outside this area.
2. The claimant had two accidents in the Manufacturing Area and, as a result, had absences from work. There was a distinct lack of safety equipment in the area.
3. Work procedures were adhered to by the claimant.
4. The Company had, in the past, spoken to the claimant re his attendance. However any absence was the result of an accident and unavoidable.
5. At no stage was the claimant informed that if his work performance did not improve he would be removed from his job.
6. The Company's action is contrary to the Company /Union agreement.
7. The claimant has effectively been demoted without any prior notice of the Company's intention. He has also suffered a loss of overtime earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was decided to transfer the claimant from Manufacturing Department because he had exhibited patterns of carelessness that had led to problems with products and to safety risks. He had a number of accidents at work and had many absences. The claimant had retained his position as Chargehand and his rate of pay has not been affected.
2. The Company was concerned that there was a pattern of increasing problems and accidents and that it was in the best interests of all concerned to transfer the claimant. It was done without affecting his position as Chargehand and without change to his rate of pay.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in this case.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd June, 2003______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.