FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 29(1), SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK ACT, 2005 PARTIES : WESTERN CARE ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - PEGGY WATERS (REPRESENTED BY GILVARRY & ASSOCIATES SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appealing against a Rights Commissioner’s Decision R-086063-Hs-09/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, on the 12th November, 2009. The Court sat to hear the appeal on the 25th August, 2010.
DETERMINATION:
This is a claim by Ms Peggy Water that she was penalised, within the meaning of the Safety Health and Welfare at work Act 2005, by her former employer, Western Care Association. The claim was considered by a Rights Commissioner ho found that it was not well founded. The claimant appealed to this court
The claimant was employed as a Social Care Leader. She was responsible for managing two services for people with learning disabilities and associated conditions. It is the claimant's case that she raised issues relating to health and safety with the respondent regarding the manner in which the Unit in which she was employed was being run. She claims that her probation was subsequently extended and she was then dismissed.
It is not denied that the claimant raised issues relating to health and safety in the course of her employment. It is however denied that her subsequent dismissal was in any way connected to her actions in raising these issues.
The Claimant bears the burden of establishing, as a matter of probability, some nexus between the detriment of which she complains and the reports concerning health and safety matters which she made. The court is not satisfied that the Claimant has discharged that burden.
The evidence tendered to the court indicated that there were serious differences between the Claimant and the management of the Respondent in relation to the Claimant's management style. The court is satisfied that these difference were the operative reason for the extension of the Claimant's probation and her subsequent dismissal.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and findings of the Rights Commissioner are correct and in line with the facts established in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the decision of the Rights commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th May, 2011______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.