FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE ST COLMCILLE HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY HSE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY INMO) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner Recommendation R-111002-ir-11/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from a written warning given to the Worker after an investigative process that was alleged to have been uncalled-for and unjust. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th February, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I have considered the submissions of both parties. It appears to me from these, that the Claimant is missing the point - she refused to accept a lawful instruction from her employer. In itself, this is quite serious leaving aside the other issue that were of concern to her employer. In examining the facts of the case the Respondent had no choice but to sanction the Claimant at the stage of the disciplinary procedure that they did. I do not find the claim well founded and therefore it fails.”
On the 22nd February, 2012 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 6thJune, 2012.
3. 1. The Worker believed that there were other courses more relevant to her needs than that which the Employer proposed for her.
2. The Worker did not want to have her quota of study days reduced by attending the course for which she had been nominated.
3.The Worker had long working experience such that she felt entitled to a say in whether or not she attended any course for which the Employer might nominate her.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The course that the Worker had declined to attend was one which the Employer deemed appropriate and relevant for the Worker.
2. There was not a strict mathematical quota of annual study days in the sense that the Employer might permit the Worker to exceed the normal quota for a worthy course.
3. No other worker had refused to attend a course selected for them by the Employer.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns the employee’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, which found against her claim that her employer had subjected her to an unfair and unnecessary investigatory process in circumstances where she was given a written warning.
The Rights Commissioner found that the Claimant had refused to accept a lawful instruction from her employer, he held that this was a quite serious matter and consequently the employer had no choice but to sanction the Claimant. Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner and upholds his Recommendation. The appeal fails.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd July, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.