FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SERCO SERVICES IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES LTD.) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FERRYS SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-038454-IR-05/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker took up employment with a city hotel in September 2003 as a Service Guest Engineer - Level 2. His functions consisted mainly of maintenance and repair. In late 2003 employees of the hotel became the subject of a transfer of undertakings to the Respondent Company. At a meeting between the Company and the employees of the hotel concerned all the main legal implications of this action were discussed. All employees would have the right to transfer to the Company and had the right to accept no less favourable terms of employment than they were currently on. Following on from Company disciplinary proceedings concerning a supervisor and the worker, which resulted in a verbal warning for the worker, he was transferred to another location.
It is the Company's claim that the enhanced contract in relation to terms and conditions, provided for the ability and necessity of the Company to move employees from site to site. The worker's claim is that his specific employment within the hotel was an area he was familiar with and afforded him personal benefits, not available at other sites. He does not challenge the Company's right to transfer employees but for his particular transfer he believes the reasons behind it are unreasonable and overly severe.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and his Recommendation as follows:
"It is my Recommendation that the claimant should accept his new posting and continue to work in the IFSC but that he should receive a compensatory sum of €2000 as compensation for the withdrawal of his benefit i.e. meals within the Hotel."
On the 14th December, 2006 the worker 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 4th May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1 The Company was obliged to deal with personality issues which arose between the worker and his supervisor and to prevent any biased action being taken against the worker at the behest of the supervisor. It is the employer's duty to deal with any grievances in a fair and balanced manner. The Company's failure to deal quickly and effectively with personnel issues concerning the worker has led to wrongful and disproportionate action being taken against him.
2 The action taken against the worker was not permissible under his contract of employment nor was it appropriate by any proper application of the rules and principles of fair procedures.
1 The Company recognises that it has a responsibility to employees with regard to issues arising in the work place. This is evidenced by their policies on bullying, harassment, discipline and grievance. The Company believes it has, whenever an issued was raised tried to address its responsibilities to the worker in the fullest possible way. The investigation into the issues between the worker and his supervisor were conducted openly and fairly.
2 The worker receives the same wage increases and benefits as he would have done had he remained at the hotel site. The benefit of a free meal was not a contractual benefit but a facility available to all personnel on that site.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the extensive oral and written submissions put forward by the parties.
In light of matters ventilated in the course of the hearing, the Court is of the view that the case should best be dealt with by payment to the claimant of an overall compensatory sum of €7500, with the Claimant remaining in his new work location, in which there appears to be satisfactory employee - employer relationship, and no outstanding disciplinary sanctions.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is upheld in principle, but varied as above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
1st June 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.