FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN BUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-108024-IR-11.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-108024-IR-11. The dispute relates to the Worker's claim for compensation for the loss of overtime earnings incurred while he was temporarily suspended from his employment. The Worker is currently employed as a Bus Driver with the Company. Following an incident which occurred in the workplace, the Worker was temporarily suspended with pay for a period of one week. It is the Worker's claim that he suffered a loss of earnings as he was scheduled to work overtime hours during his suspension period. The Worker further contends that he was treated in an unfair manner and the suspension period imposed on him was unwarranted. The Employer disputes the Worker's claim, arguing that the Worker was treated fairly and in line with Company procedures. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 13th April, 2012, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"The Claimant has sought compensation for alleged lost overtime but I consider it inappropriate to award overtime payment for overtime not worked.
The Claimant's work record remains clear.
I would recommend that the interpretation of Agreements, both central and local, be confirmed between the Company and the Unions such that the first-bus checks are not a source of potential difficulties for the Company and importantly for the drivers in future.
I also recommend that the Claimant's disciplinary record be confirmed as clear".
On the 2nd May, 2012 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 13th July, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer refused to adhere to the terms of a longstanding Agreement.
2. The Union asserts that the decision to suspend the Worker in this instance was unfair and premature in nature.
3. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking compensation for the loss of an overtime payment incurred by the Worker during his suspension period.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is of the view that it had no alternative other than to suspend the Worker as a result of his refusal to carry out an instruction given by Management.
2. The Worker received full pay during his suspension period.
3. The Employer maintains that the Worker is not entitled to be paid for overtime hours that were not carried out.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court takes the view that the Worker concerned should have, under protest, carried out the disputed bus safety checks as instructed by Management and pursued a grievance through the relevant procedure in the normal way.
The Court notes that the Worker concerned was suspended that day on full pay whilst the matter was progressed through procedure. In the event no disciplinary action was taken and the Worker suffered no loss of basic pay.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for compensation for loss of overtime incurred by the Worker resulting from his suspension from work.
The appeal is rejected.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st August 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.