FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MACFARLANE LABELS LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH PRINT GROUP OF SIPTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the worker for a disputed annual leave entitlement of one working week for the leave year of 2006. The worker attended a disciplinary hearing on the Friday the 21st April, 2006, he was represented by his Union official. Management suspended the worker from duty with pay for one week pending consideration by the Company as to the level of disciplinary action to be taken (inclusive of dismissal) with immediate effect. The Union informed the Company that the claimant was due to take a weeks annual leave coinciding with the proposed week of suspension. The Union contends that Management insisted that the worker should regard himself as suspended for that week.
The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner Service, but the Company refused to attend. The Union then referred the worker's claim to the Labour Court on the 5th January, 2007 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th March, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contends that the worker was clearly suspended for the week in question and therefore could not be regarded as being on annual leave. The suspension was punitive in nature, as it was implemented in the context of disciplinary proceedings.
2. To regard a disciplinary suspension as annual leave would be a breach of Section 20 subsection (a) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Act is a piece of Health and Safety legislation which takes account of the human need for rest and recreation. The opportunity for rest and recreation in this case was undermined by the looming presence of a pending decision on the future of the claimants livelihood and the fact that he was serving a period of suspension.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker did attend a disciplinary hearing on Friday 21st April, 2006 relating to continued issues regarding uncertified absence and breach of procedures in the event of such absences. The outcome of this hearing was that he was advised he was being suspended from duty with pay. He would be informed of the final outcome of the Company's decision within 7 days.
2. The Company admits that the period of suspension coincided with the prearranged holiday period and that there is nothing to say that both suspension and annual leave cannot run concurrently.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that a weeks suspension imposed as a disciplinary sanction cannot be regarded as running concurrent with a weeks annual leave. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Claimant be granted a weeks annual leave in line with his statutory entitlements.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th March, 2007______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.