FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GUINNESS IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rationalisation terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company in May, 1965, and continued to work until 1998. The worker admits that he had a problem with alcohol which he had developed over his years in work. He was issued with a final written warning in January, 1996, as a result of alcohol consumption and being unfit to work. In February, 1997, following a meeting with the Company doctor, the worker signed an agreement stating that if he was found to be unfit for work as a result of alcohol or other prohibited substances, he would be deemed to have dismissed himself from the Company.
Following representation from the Union, it was agreed to deal with the issue as a medical problem. It was eventually decided that the worker would be retired on medical grounds under the Company's disability scheme. This provided him with an immediate pension equal to the pension he would have received had he remained in service until retiring age. The worker, however, believes that he should have been treated the same as those who availed of a rationalisation plan which was implemented 12 months after he retired. This could have enabled him to avail of redundancy terms.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of October, 2003, in Waterford, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's problem with alcohol developed as a result of the availability of free alcohol on site from the time he started working. By the time he left the Company in 1998 it had become a serious problem.
2. The worker was treated differently to other employees who were able to avail of a redundancy package. He believes that this is because of the alcohol problems he developed in work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In January, 1996, the worker was issued with a final written warning. He was absent for 72 days in 1996 and 130 days in 1997 due to alcohol problems.
2. The Company did everything it could to help the worker, with access to counsellors, social workers and the Chief Medical Officer.
3. Agreement to allow the worker to retire on medical grounds at the worker's request. If the disciplinary route had been followed to conclusion, the worker could have been dismissed.
4. The worker was not made redundant as his role was backfilled when he left. The rationalisation plan he refers to did not come into effect until 12 months after he left.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute. The Court cannot see any basis on which it could recommend concession of the claim. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the worker should accept that he does not have an entitlement to the redundancy package in question.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th October, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.