FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALLIED SECURITY NETWORK LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY GER MC GRATH) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Unlawful treatment & other issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed at Marino Point in Cork in a security capacity for many years though the Company claims that his employment with Allied Security only began in March, 2006, when it took over a number of contracts. His case is that, following an incident on 25th August, 2008, the worker was transferred to an ASN Site in Mallow and was told that it was due to his "inaction on the night". The worker saw this as a disciplinary action. Briefly, what happened on the 25th August was as follows: a power failure occurred and the worker carried out an investigation and prepared a report. It later transpired that a break in may have occurred with the purpose of stealing copper. The Gardai investigated the event but nobody was charged. The worker wrote to the Company about his transfer but it was confirmed by letter on 27th September, 2008. The worker informed the Company that he was starting sick leave due to the stress of the incident and he continues to be on sick leave to date.
The worker wrote to the Company on a number of occasions in relation to his grievance and the Company appointed an investigator. However, as nothing came of the investigation the worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 15th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1969. A labour Court hearing took place on the 20th October, 2010, in Cork. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company did not attend the hearing but in a letter to the Court stated that its client regarded the incident of 25th August, 2008, as a serious breach of the security system and requested that the worker be removed from the site. It stated that there was damage to the client's site which the Company had to pay for. The worker was offered work on another site but he refused.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had an unblemished 32 years' record at Marino Point and was a conscientious and diligent worker for the Company since it took over the site in March, 2006.
2. The transfer to Mallow constituted a major change to the worker's contractual terms and conditions. No proper or fair investigation was undertaken by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer was notified of the time, date and place of the hearing of this claim but failed to attend the hearing. The employer did, however, set out its position in a written submission to the Court. The content of that submission was taken into account in formulating this recommendation.
While the employer appears to be entitled to transfer the Claimant under the terms of his contract of employment he was, however, based at the same location for 32 years and the decision to transfer him could only be regarded as a disciplinary sanction.
It is clear to the Court that the Claimant was denied fair procedure in reaching the decision to transfer him and in the investigation of the subsequent grievance which he raised.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €10,000 and that he be transferred back to the location at which he was originally employed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th October, 2010______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.