FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN EXAMINING BOARD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-064925-ir-08/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-064925-ir-08/RG. The issue in dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Dublin Examining Board from January 2008 until May 2008.
It is the worker's contention that she was informed at interview that her entitlement to Annual Leave was six weeks per year. She contends that she was informed later that she was not entitled to the entire six weeks off as requested and was allegedly treated unfairly by management, accused in the wrong of inappropriate and agressive behaviour and eventually dismissed without being afforded the principals of natural justice.
Management's position is that it made every effort to facilitate the worker in her request to take additional annual leave than what she was entitled to in the form of unpaid leave, work during the period her department is usually closed or work additional hours and take the time off in lieu as required. Management further contends that the initial dispute centered around the annual leave issue but refusals on the part of the worker to sign her contract, her inappropriate attitude to and inability to work with line management left the Company no option but to invoke the termination clause of the probationary contract.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Her Recommendation issued on the 18th March 2009, and did not find in favour of the worker's claim.
On the 15th April 2009, 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 1st July, 2009.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was misinformed at interview as to the annual leave entitlement of her contract. When she subsequently applied to take the required time off, she was informed that she was not entitled to the amount of leave required.
2 The worker made several attempts to resolve the issues with management and reach a mutually suitable resolution to the problem. Management subsequently decided to dismiss the worker without processing her complaints in line with procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management made every effort to facilitate the worker when she requested to take annal leave in excess of her entitlements at the time. The worker did not accept the options put to her by management, instead insisting that she had been misinformed of her entitlements and that she be given the required time off as a result.
2 The worker's behaviour towards supervisory and line management personnel was unacceptable. She refused to sign her contract of employment and indicated an unwillingness to work with the staff in question. As redeployment within the Company was not an option and on the basis of the irreparable damage to the working relationship, Management had no option but to terminate+ the worker's employment.
DECISION:
In the view of the Court, the treatment of the claimant in this case fell short of best practice in a number of aspects.
The Court decides that €3,750 would be an appropriate level of compensation and directs that this be paid to the claimant.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is overturned accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd July 2009______________________
ahDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.