FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OSCAR SECURITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-081532-ir-09-GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the Empolyer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-081532-ir-09-GC. The issue concerns a worker who had been employed as a Security Officer by the Company from June, 2006 to September, 2009 and the gradual reduction in his workers hours prior to his eventual dismissal.
Management's position is that it became increasingly difficult to assign the worker to client locations on the basis of representations made in relation to the workers performance and that this ultimately led to his dismissal.
The Union's position is that the worker had a contractual entitlement to his normal weekly working hours, which it claims were changed without consultation.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her Recommendation issued on the 15th January, 2010 as follows:
The claimant's hours were reduced mainly due to the fact that the Company was experiencing difficulty placing him in locations where clients requested his removal. I find that the claimant has contributed significantly to the predicament in which he found himself and the Company issued him with many warnings prior to his dismissal.
I note that the claimant's contract of employment states that he was employed as a Security Officer on a "full-time basis"and that the hours of work "will normally be of 54 hours duration" including Sunday and night duty, (this was subsequently reduced to 48 hours in line with the Organisation of Working Time Act).
I note that in the last two months of his employment the claimant was rostered to work an average of 29 hours per week. Although the claimant contrtibuted to the situation, I recommend that as a once off gesture the Company offer him a payment of €750 in full and final settlement of his claim.
On the 15th February, 2010 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 25th August, 2010.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Company had no option but to reduce the workers hours on duty. Clients of the Company specifically requested that the worker should not be placed at their locations and in such circumstnces there was simply nothing further that could be done.
2 The worker was wholly responsible for the initial reduction in hours as clients had requested that he not be placed at their locations. In such circumstances it is inappropriate that he be compensated for the loss of hours.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management unilaterally cut the workers hours without attempting to find an alternative solution.
2 There were other workers with less service than the Claimant who received additional hours of work after his hours had been reduced.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the employer of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation. The matter before the Rights Commissioner’s concerned the claimant’s claim for compensation for loss of earnings due to a reduction in his weekly working hours. The Rights Commissioner found that due to the claimant’s conduct he contributed significantly to the circumstances where the Company had no alternative but to reduce his hours of work. However, in all the circumstances of this case the Rights Commissioner was of the view that a once off gesture should be paid to the claimant and recommended that the employer should pay him a sum of €750.00 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Having considered all aspects of the appeal, notwithstanding that the Company’s loss of the security contract which was most unfortunate the Court recommends that the employer should pay the €750.00 recommended by the Right’s Commissioner in the spirit it was conveyed in her Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Right’s Commissioner’s Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th September 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.