FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MANLEY CONSTRUCTION LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR19690/04/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR19690/04/MMG concerning a dispute between SIPTU and Manley Construction Limited in relation to alleged unfair dismissal.
The Union (on behalf of the Worker) are claiming that the worker was unfairly selected for redundancy on the basis that, following the completion of a project, workers with less service were kept on by the employer. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the project had reached completion and there were redundancies as a result.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 17th February, 2005, as follows:-
"Having carefully considered the evidence presented and noting that it was uncontested I am of the opinion that the claimant has presented a valid claim before me.
I recommend an award of €5000 net in compensation to the claimant"
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
On the 18th March, 2005, the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th May, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not supply written terms and conditions of employment to the worker nor was there any written selection procedure concerning redundancy/termination of employment.
2. The worker was given 1 week's notice based on there being no work available. This notice was issued following the worker being elected as a shop steward and identifying Health and Safety concerns to management. The Union's position is that the worker was selected for redundancy unfairly and was victimised after his appointment as a shop steward.
3. The worker was not afforded the right of representation nor was there any consultation with the Union prior to the termination of employment.
4. When Health and Safety issues were brought to the attention of management, namely the unclean state of the bathrooms and canteen facilities, the worker in question was given the responsibility of rectifying the situation on a daily basis. This was not part of his conditions of employment prior to making management aware of the Health and Safety issues on site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were 5/6 employees let go following the completion of the project. The Company agreed to contact the workers immediately in the event that more work became available.
2. The worker in question was employed on a project related basis.Work on an alternative site would have been offered had there been a suitable position available.
3. Staff were informed that the project on which they were working was nearing completion and redundancies may follow.
4. As regards the Health and Safety issues, every effort was made by the company in rectifying any difficulties on site. There were other employees who were also assigned to clean the bathrooms and canteen facilities.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court can see no basis upon which it could disagree with the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st July, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.