FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL / FIRE SERVICE - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Kilkenny County Council and the worker, in relation to the worker's alleged unfair dismissal from the Council's Retained Firefighter Service. The worker's position is that he was unfairly dismissed on medical grounds from his position without a fair and transparent medical investigation. Management contend that expert medical advice was obtained and, in the circumstances, it had no option but to cease the worker's employment with the service.
The dispute was not resolved at local level. The worker referrred the matter to the Labour Court on 12th December 2006 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 18th September, 2007.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was dismissed unfairly by the Council. There was no transparent medical investigation into the alleged health problems experienced by the worker.
2 The worker's condition did exist in the past but has been controlled by medication for a number of years. It is accepted that, where conditions are medically controlled for many years, there is little risk involved. In this instance the worker should have been allowed remain on active duty.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Given the dangerous nature of the work involved in the Retained Fire Service, and the independent medical advice received, management had no option but to stand down the worker from active service.
2 The worker had every right to obtain medical advise and have his own independet assessment carried out. He did not provide any alternative asessment of his health by another consultant nor did he contact his General Practitioner with a view to having such an assessment.
3 Initially, the worker was employed on the basis of good health.He did not disclose his medical condition at the time of interview
It later bcame clear that his condition was pre-existing for many years and was being controlled by medication.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties. The Court is satisfied that on the basis of the information and professional reports before it, the Council acted reasonably. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the workers claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd October 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.