FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Relocation
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute betwen the worker and his employer concerning the outcome of a disciplinary procedure within the employment. The worker in question was employed by Iarnrod Eireann at Thurles Station on a temporary basis from December 2000 and was subsequently made permanent in April 2004, when it became apparent that he had allegedly altered his birth certificate when applying for the position. Management were of the view that this was a serious breach of conduct and disciplinary procedures were instigated which resulted in the worker being dismissed with effect from 1st July 2004. A appeal hearing was held on 10th September 2004 and the decision to dismiss was upheld.
Following another appeal the worker was re-instated in his employment but was (a) suspended for 4 weeks without pay (b) issued with a final warning and (c) transferred to the Dublin mainline district with a work location at Heuston station.
The employer felt that the transfer was reasonable as it gave the worker an opportunity to start again with a "clean slate" in a new district, although they did say that the matter would have been dealt with had it been raised internally rather than before the Labour Court.
The worker is seeking redress against the severity of the transfer from Thurles to Dublin on the basis that it results in him travelling in excess of 200 miles to work each day. He is seeking a transfer to a station nearer home.
The matter was referred to the Court on 12th January 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industtrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The transfer from Thurles station to Heuston Station, Dublin has resulted in excessive travelling on a daily basis. This disciplinary action is excessive as four weeks suspension without pay and a final warning had also been imposed following the misdemeanour.
2. There has also been financial expenses incurred as a result of the excessive travel to and from work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was transferred to the Dublin mainline district with a work location at Heuston Station following a serious breach of conduct. Originally the sanction had been dismissal but this had been overturned after a second appeal.
2. The matter would have been dealt with in the appropriate manner had it been raised internally through the correct procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
At the Court hearing on 28th June 2005, the Company indicated to the Court that it was prepared to look favourably at the worker’s situation and to return with a proposal to the Court. The Court has received a letter dated 4th July 2005, copy attached, which contains the Company’s planned approach to dealing with the workers case.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the proposal is reasonable in the circumstances and hereby endorses it in its entirety.
The Court furthermore recommends that the worker should accept the proposal as a final resolution to this matter and in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th July 2005______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.