FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : I.P. EUROPE LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR11294/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Gorey, Co Wexford and manufactures stretch film for agricultural and industrial use.
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in February, 2000. Once every six weeks, due to shift rotation the worker was rostered from 8am to 8pm on Saturday and Sunday. He came to an arrangement with the HR Manager which enabled him to attend Mass. A colleague started half an hour early in the evening and the worker reciprocated the arrangement the following morning.
In March, 2002 it was noticed that the worker was leaving early for Mass without any cover being in place. He was advised that he would have to have cover if he wished to attend Mass.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 7th of November, 2003, as follows:
"the arrangement which is operating for the past year seems to me to be reasonable. I recommend that the claimant accept it as such."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th Of November, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union stated that the original agreement was for the worker to clock out for the period he went to Mass and that no cover was required.
2. The Union also stated that the requirement for the worker to provide cover for his absence was introduced following a dispute with operatives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company claim that the arrangement made with the worker was that cover be provided when he left early to attend Mass.
2. The Company accept that a breakdown in communications led to the worker attending Mass without cover for a period of time. The original arrangement was re-instated when this was noticed.
3. The Company believe they offered the worker a reasonable solution to the problem.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties agrees with the Rights Commissioners observations and Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioners Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th May, 2004______________________
MG/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.