FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NCBI (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation R-050883-Ir-07/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced working for the Respondent as a telephonist in 2004. In February 2006 the Claimant was assigned by the Respondent as a telephonist in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (the Department) on a contract which was renewed in August 2006 but expired in February 2007. The Claimant claims that her contract was not renewed by the Department because she complained about difficulties with some of her switchboard colleagues. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th November, 2007 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
- “Strictly speaking it appears that the respondent complied with the terms of the claimant's contract and removed her from working in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in accordance with the arrangements they had made with that department.
However based on the submissions of the parties and the discussions at the hearing I suspect that the difficulties which the claimant experienced during her time in the department were not given a very sympathetic hearing, nor was any great effort made to resolve them.
Without prejudice to any future work which she may get from NCBI I recommend that the claimant be paid €1,000 in compensation.”.
On the 20th December, 2007, the Claimant 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 9th July, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.- “Strictly speaking it appears that the respondent complied with the terms of the claimant's contract and removed her from working in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in accordance with the arrangements they had made with that department.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. No effort was made to try and resolve the problems the Claimant was having while working in the Department.
2. Had the Claimant been treated fairly she would still be employed as a telephonist by the Department
3.The amount of compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner does not adequately reflect the Claimant's loss of earnings.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim that the Respondent did not address the issues raised by the Claimant concerning other employees is not true.
2. The Department acted within its contractual rights when it decided that it no longer required the Claimant's services.
3. The Respondent contacted the Claimant on two separate occasions in February 2007 to offer her other work but the Claimant stated that she was medically unfit for work.
DECISION:
It is clear that the responsibility for what occurred to the Claimant does not lie with the NCBI. In these circumstances the Court believes that the approach adopted by the Rights Commissioner is reasonable.
It is noted that the Claimant is now fit to resume work, having been medically unfit for some time. The Court believes that she should be placed in the pool of telephonists and given priority for placement in available work to which she can be assigned.
With this modification the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th July, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.