FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EIRCOM LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY TOM MALLON, B. L. INSTRUCTED BY ARTHUR COX, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-050108-ir-07/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced employment with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in 1975 and rose to the position of Senior Night Telephonist and since June 2005 was employed as a Telephonist in the Emergency Services area of Eircom Operator Services. The Emergency 999/122 Service operation is managed by Eircom Operator Services whose Telephonists connect the customer making the call to the required service be it either Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Garda or Marine Rescue. Calls by their nature can be a matter of life or death and are required to be answered within an average time of 2 seconds. In order to substantiate the response time all calls are recorded and each operator/telephonist is electronically logged while at their work-station to ensure that there is absolute traceability of calls so as to facilitate any future inquiry. The Worker had sanctions imposed on him with effect from 26th November, 2006, and whether or not this followed the Eircom Disciplinary Code of Practice is at the centre of the dispute.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 15th November 2007, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"Based on the submissions of the parties and on the discussions at the hearing I am satisfied that the procedures followed by the respondent in dealing with this matter were fair and reasonable and in accordance with the agreed procedures.
I do not recommend in favour of the claimant."
On the 28 November, 2007, 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 8th January, 2009.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Disciplinary Code of Practice was not adhered to as Management failed to pay heed to his complaints regarding acoustic shock and his problems with broken chairs.
2. There was no provision for counselling which was requested as a result of the trauma caused by the handling of an emergency call from a person threatening to commit suicide.
3. All absences were due directly to his experiences while at work and this fact is reflected in the medical certificates provided by his GP and Physiotherapist.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Respondent submits that the Rights Commissioner was correct in his findings that procedures were fair and reasonable and in accordance with agreed procedures.
2. The Claimant has failed to provide any substantive justification for his appeal to be upheld.
DECISION:
The appeal of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation before the Court, made by the Worker, concerns a disciplinary sanction imposed on him by the Company in November 2006, which resulted in him being removed from his normal weekly work rota. The removal from weekend, evening and night duties resulted in a reduction in his weekly earnings. The Appellant submitted a complaint to the Rights Commissioner and sought the removal of the disciplinary sanction.
The Appellant submitted to the Court that in deciding to issue him with the disciplinary sanction, the Company has failed to take account of complaints he made concerning his working conditions and resulting medical conditions.
The Court has carefully examined the procedures adopted by the Company when the disciplinary sanction was imposed on the Appellant in respect of his underperformance arising from his poor attendance and excess log-out times during the period 19th to 29th June 2005 (inclusive).
The Court has examined the procedures used throughout the period from the time his manager first raised the matter with him on 4th July 2005 until the conclusion of the process on 26th November 2006, when the sanction was imposed. The Court is satisfied that the procedures adopted were fair and reasonable and in accordance with the Company’s Disciplinary Procedures. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that the disciplinary sanction imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances and accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Appellant’s appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th January, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.