FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL EGAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of A Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-069252-Ir-08/Sr
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-069252-ir-08/SR. The issue concerns a worker who was temporarily employed by Monaghan County Council.
It is alleged that she had obtained permanent employment elsewhere but was not furnished with a reference from the Council. Management's position is that the worker had only been in its employment for a short period of time and that it was unable to adequately answer all questions required of it in the new employer's reference form.
The worker contends that the permanent position in another company did not materialise as the reference was not supplied by Monaghan County Council. It is also alleged that further representations to Management resulted in a reference issuing but not in the prescribed form. Ultimatley, the worker was not appointed in the new post.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 10th February 2009 and awarded the worker €7,500 compensation for the continued financial loss and the stress and hardship suffered as a result of managment's refusal to issue a reference to the worker.
On the 27th February 2009, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th May. 2009.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was offered a permanent position with another company which was contingent on the worker receiving a reference in the presribed format. As a result of management's refusal in this regard, the worker was unsucessful in securing the new position.
2 The worker continues to suffer financial loss as she remains unable to secure full time employment. Management's actions have also halted the workers career progression which has been a source of great distress to her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management did not feel it appropriate to issue the prescribed reference as the worker had only been in its employment for a short time and it felt unable to accurately and fairly complete the process.
2 Management issued a reference by letter when it became clear that the other position was contingent on its receipt. It did not intend to cause any difficulties to the worker in relation to the new position.
DECISION:
The Court is firmly of the view that the claimant is a worker within the meaning of the
Industrial Relations Acts (1946-2004).
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court considers that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner was correct. The Court confirms the Recommendation and so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
14th May 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.