FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS ATHA CLIATH - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Removal from Attendance Control Programme (ACP) and the withdrawal of final warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed with the Company for over 32 years, 26 years as a bus driver. In August of 1998 the worker suffered a back injury which was verified as an occupational injury by local management as per records submitted by the worker to the Court. The worker has suffered a number of re-occurrences of his illness and is awaiting surgery for a disk problem. Due to his illness, the worker was absent on a number of occasions. He received a final warning and was put on the Attendance Control Programme (ACP). The worker informed the Court that occupational injuries are exempt from the ACP and that he should not have been placed on this programme.
The worker has requested that his final warning be withdrawn and that he be removed from the ACP.
The claim could not be resolved at local level. The worker referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 15th June, 2004 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company advised the Court by letter dated the 30th July, 2004 that the final warning had been removed from the worker's record in March, 2004 and that he was offered the option to be removed from the ACP in March and to have his absences dealt with on an individual basis without reference to any of ACP criteria. The worker refused this offer. The Company stated in the correspondence that it would not be attending the Labour Court hearing. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th June, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The absences were due to an occupational injury in August 1998.
2. Occupational injury is exempt from the ACP.
3. No written notification was received of the final warning having been removed. The worker claims that he received it in writing, it should be removed in writing.
4. The worker declined to have his absences dealt with on an individual basis as he was unsure of the consequences.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer declined to attend the hearing for reasons which were set out in a letter which it sent to the Court. The employer also set out its position in respect of the substantive issue before the Court. The Court finds it regrettable that the employer did not participate in the investigation of this dispute and avail of the opportunity to clarify its position in respect of the matters raised by the complainant.
Having considered the submission of the claimant and the terms of the letter from the employer it is apparent to the Court that there is some confusion as to the current status of the claimant relative to the final written warning with which he was issued, and regarding his participation in the Absence Control Programme. The employer claims that the warning was withdrawn in March 2004 and that the claimant was removed from the ACP in the same month. The claimant contends that he was never informed to that effect.
The Court recommends that the employer issue the claimant with a statement in writing clarifying its position in respect of both matters.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd_August, 2004______________________
JB/Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.