FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OAKLAWN SECURITY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR21612/04/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal by the employer of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR21612/04/GF. The Company's position is that the employer in question left his employment of his own accord rather than by dismissal.
The Union, (on behalf of the worker) are claiming that the worker was dismissed unfairly and treated in an inappropriate manner by his employer.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 11th January, 2005 as follows:-
"The Union made a comprehensive written submission on behalf of the claimant. It was alleged he had been unfairly dismissed from his position as a security officer. He had been unemployed for a considerable period and his outstanding wages were not paid. He was seeking compensation in the amount of €6286.
Findings and Recommendations
In the unexplained absence of the employer I find in the claimant's favour. I require his employer to compensate him in the amount claimed of €6286 forthwith".
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. On the 17th January, 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 20th April, 2005.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker in question refused to work the roster given to him as he was working part-time on Saturday nights for another company at the time.
2. The worker left the employment of his own accord without giving any notice of his intention to terminate his contract.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker in question was not employed by another Company on a part-time basis. The worker was unable to work the roster as it required him to work a Saturday night shift and a Sunday day shift without adequate rest.
2. The Union made every effort to resolve the dispute at local level. The Company ignored all correspondence from the Union and failed to attend the Rights Commissioners Hearing.
DECISION:
The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly dismissed from his employment. This claim was upheld by the Rights Commissioner.
The Company appealed the recommendation of the Right’s Commissioner and maintained that the worker terminated his own employment on 26th July 2004. Management maintained that the impetus for this termination was due to his objection to the roster he was required to work that week as it clashed with his employment elsewhere. The Company maintained that the roster was one he had regularly worked in the past.
The worker explained that he objected to the roster, as the hours he was required to work that week for the Company would mean that he would not have sufficient rest time. He explained that when he objected, his employment was terminated.
The Court was presented with confusing information; sufficient records were not available to substantiate the arguments made and conflicting information was given to the Court concerning warnings.
Consequently, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that there was fault on both sides and recommends that a payment of €1500 should be made to the worker in full and final settlement of all claims against the company.
Therefore, the Rights’ Commissioner’s recommendation is overturned and amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th May, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.