FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-099984-IR-10/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Union's appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. The dispute relates specifically to the cessation of the Worker's contract he held while employed in a temporary capacity as a General Operative with Clare County Council and his claim for loss of earnings as a result. The Union on behalf of its member claims that the Worker's contract was terminated unexpectedly while other temporary workers were granted a one-month time extension at the same time. The Union claims that as a result of the sudden cessation of the Worker's contract he suffered a loss of earnings equivalent to four weeks' pay. The Union is currently seeking this amount to be paid to the worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th April, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend the Claimant receive a goodwill gesture of €1,000 compensation to remedy the situation".
On the 27th May, 2011 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 4th April, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker's contract was terminated while other temporary employees were granted a time extension.
2. The Worker had an expectation that his contract would be renewed.
3. The Worker suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the unexpected cessation of his contract.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the Worker's temporary contract elapsed with time as opposed to being terminated.
2. The Employer is of the view that the Worker was advised of the precise dates of his contracts and therefore he could not have an expectation that his contract would be extended beyond its expiration.
DECISION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are correct and that his recommendation is reasonable. Accordingly the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to make it clear that it is dealing only with the issue before the Rights Commissioner, namely a claim for four weeks pay. Issues in relation to the continued or the future employment of the Claimant are not before the Court and are not affected by this decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd April 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.