FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOVEX PACKAGING SERVICES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-055471-IR-07/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker, who is from Moldava, joined the Company as a general operative on the 22nd July, 2005. The Company employs mainly foreign nationals, most of whom are from Eastern Europe. This included the worker's supervisor who was also from Moldavia. Her work involved the re-packing of confectionery and other consumer items.
An incident arose between the worker and her colleagues which caused the current dispute. The Company proposed having an independent third party investigate the issue and an initial investigation took place. During the investigation a number of the worker's colleagues made complaints against her. The Company suggested that the worker move to another work area where she would be doing work with which she was familiar. It claims that the worker was not amenable to this and failed to report for work. The Company continued to pay the worker for five weeks but then ceased payments.
The worker's case is that she is still not sure what her co-workers said about her regarding the incident but believes that they wanted her dismissed. She claims that the new position offered to her by the Company would have involved a move of location and that the Company did not provide transportation for her. She also claims that she would have been required to drive a fork-lift truck, something she was not qualified to do. (The Company denies that this was the case.)
The worker referred her case to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"I have considered that arguments put forward by both parties. It was accepted by both parties that the claimant had indeed made a complaint and a preliminary investigation had been carried out in which counter complaints had been made against the claimant which would have rendered the matter inconclusive. I therefore do not find her claim well founded and therefore it falls."
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th February, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd April, 2008. The following is the Court's recommendation:
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions made to it by the parties.
The Court notes that the Company has offered:-
- to have an independent investigation of the claimant's workplace complaints carried out as soon as possible by an external H.R. consultant
- to re-engage the claimant at its Cookstown site, while the above takes place, on work which she is capable of performing and
- to provide transport for the claimant to and from the Cookstown site.
The Court considers that this offer, clarified at the hearing on April 3rd 2008, should be accepted by the claimant as the best way of resolving the situation. The Court does not consider that her claim for payment for the period of her absence from work should be conceded.
The Court so decides and varies the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
11th April, 2008.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.