FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-083385-IR-09/JC
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned commenced employment as a Truck Driver with Dublin City Council in 2004 and was assigned to the Main Drainage Department in Marrowbone Lane Depot.
It was alleged by Management that the Worker took unapproved leave on 19th and 20th March 2009. As a result of this a two weeks' suspension without pay was imposed and a final written warning issued.
The decision was appealed to the Divisional Engineer who upheld the decision but reduced the suspension to one week without pay. This decision was further appealed to the Human Resources Department of Dublin City Council and upheld.
The matter was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her findings issued on the 16th February 2010 in which she recommended that the final written warning be withdrawn.
On the 12th March 2010 Dublin City Council 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 25th June, 2010
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Council maintains that at all four meetings with the Worker he was told that his request to anticipative leave had been refused.
2. The Council maintains that it did follow normal procedures in relation to annual leave in this instance.
3. The Council contends that unauthorised absences are not acceptable or tolerated by the City Council and that under the prevailing circumstances a final written warning and a period of suspension was the appropriate action.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union, on behalf of the Worker, disputes the notion that the Worker was informed of any objection to his request to take annual leave.
2. The Union maintains that the Worker followed all the agreed guidelines in applying for leave and was led to believe that there was no problem with his request.
DECISION:
It is clear to the Court that the Worker in this case was culpable in not attending for work on the days in issue. This was acknowledged by the Rights Commissioner in her Recommendation which left in place the suspension without pay imposed on the Worker. The Rights Commissioner also found some mitigation and on that basis recommended the removal of the final written warning.
Having regard to all the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the approach of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and supported by the facts of the case. Accordingly the Court affirms the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th June, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.