FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-045764-IR-06/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been employed by Superquinn as a Sales Assistant since 1993.
On the 25th August 2006 the Worker reported for work at 7.00 a.m. Some time later in the morning an Assistant Manager called the Worker into his office to enquire if he was unwell as he was concerned about his behaviour. The Worker became upset at the questioning and said he would go to a Doctor and get a medical opinion. He returned a short time later with a Doctor's note to state that he was physically fit for work. Despite intervention from the Shop Steward and a number of colleagues, on behalf of the Worker, the Assistant Manager insisted on sending him home.
At a meeting with the Store Manager on the 28th August 2006 to discuss the incident of the 25th August the Worker was told that he had done nothing wrong, there would be no disciplinary action and no pay would be deducted for the day in question.
On Thursday 31st August 2006 the Worker was called into the office and informed that an informal investigation into what had happened was being undertaken by the HR Department.
On the 15th September 2006 a meeting was called at the Request of the Worker's Union representative at which it was further clarified that the Worker was fully exonerated of any wrong doing. When asked why an apology had not been issued to the Worker the Union was told that due to the ongoing investigation no decision could be taken until it was concluded. At this point it was decided to refer the issue to a third party.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her recommendation issued on the 28th February 2007, as follows:-
"I recommend that the manager confirm in writing to the Worker that the medical certificate of the 25th August should have been accepted by the acting manager on the day as evidence of his fitness to work; that no disciplinary action be recorded or taken against the Worker and that any upset caused to him by the actions of management on the day are regretted."
The Worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Union, on behalf of the Worker, appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st March, 2007, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,on the grounds that the Rights Commissioner failed to compensate him for the stress he suffered.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st June, 2007, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The behaviour of the Assistant Manager in refusing to accept the medical certificate stating that the Worker was physically fit for work was bizarre.
2. The meeting of the 28th August at which the Store Manager acknowledged that there had been no wrongdoing by the Worker provided an opportunity for an apology to the Worker for the stress and embarrassment caused to him. An apology was not given at this time.
3. The Worker maintains that he has suffered from stress and depression since the incident and should be compensated for this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Assistant Store Manager genuinely believed that the Worker was behaving unusually and erratically on the morning in question.
2. The Company has a responsibility for the health and safety of all colleagues. As there was a concern for the Worker's welfare the decision to send him home was reasonable and within the authority of the Assistant Store Manager.
3. The Store Manager met with the Worker and confirmed that he would suffer no loss of pay as a result of being sent home and that no disciplinary action was being pursued following the matter.
DECISION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Rights Commissioner. Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and the appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th July, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.