FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CATHAL SHEVLIN ENGINEERING LTD (REPRESENTED BY O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-089233-IR-09
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns an appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. R-089233-IR-09. The Worker commenced employment with the Company in October, 2007. The Worker sustained a number of injuries and illnesses while in employment with the Company. He sustained a low back injury, an abdominal hernia and lacerations on his ankle. In January, 2009 he was medically certified to return to light duties at work. The Union contend that the duties assigned to the Worker were not light and he was unable to continue in his job. The Company's position is that the Worker never raised any issue over the duties assigned to him. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation on the 19th April 2010 as follows:
"Having reviewed all of the submissions in addition to the evidence presented at the hearing, I have concluded on the balance of probability that the claimant voluntarily terminated his own employment and accordingly I do not uphold the complaint".
On the 13th October, 2010, 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 the 6th May, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 On presentation of his medical certificate the Worker was informed he could carry out store work and van driving. On arrival at work he was directed to the workshop where he was expected to work with 15 kilogram bolts, which required lifting and bending. This could not be considered light duties.
2 The Worker resigned from his job on medical direction as he believed the Company was not genuine in its intentions to provide a period of adjustment to full recovery.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 On his return to work, the Worker was assigned to the least demanding job in the Workshop in deference to the doctor's suggestion of light duties. This involved the folding of fence panels on a press brake machine. This is a recurring job in the workshop. At no time did the Worker make any complaint about the job or indicate in any way it was beyond his capabilities or causing discomfort.
2 In February, 2009 while covered by a medical certificate the Worker contacted the Company and informed it that the doctor had advised he ceased working. He requested his P45. At an exit meeting on 16th February, 2009 the light duties job was not mentioned. The Company tried to facilitate the Worker at all times and were prepared to continue his employment.
DECISION:
There is a sharp conflict of evidence between the Claimant's version of the material facts surrounding the termination of his employment and his former employer's recollection of these events.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the court is satisfied that the Claimant voluntarily left his employment. In so far as he may have had difficulties in carrying out the duties of his job there is no record of him ever having raised these matters with the employer.
The Court does not accept that the Claimant was forced out of his employment or constructively dismissed. The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd May, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.