FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CARTON BROS LIMITED. - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Medical Certification Procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the worker in relation to the Company's procedures and actions surrounding medical certification of illness. The issue concerns a worker who had a suspected contagious illness but was not absent from work. It is alleged that management asked her to get a medical certificate to confirm a) that the worker was medically fit to attend work and b) that she had been medically fit to attend work while suffering from the illness. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is claiming that management had treated the worker badly in seeking the medical certificates and had in fact ordered the worker to leave the premises until the appropriate certificates were produced.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 27th January 2012 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th April, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was treated very badly by management during the period in question. She was shouted at, refused entry into a senior manager's office and ordered to leave the premises and to obtain the appropriate medical certification. This is unacceptable and should never have occurred.
2 Management contends it was acting out of its duty of care to other workers as complaints had been received in relation to the illness. The worker was never informed of the complaints made nor was she afforded the opportunity to respond. In treating the worker in such an unacceptable and inappropriate manner, management failed in its duty of care towards the Claimant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker is a valued member of staff and is highly respected by management. The issues surrounding the medical certification are in line with the Company's procedures and any unresolved issues could have been easily resolved without the need for third party involvement.
2 There was a number of apologies given to the worker in relation to any perceived ill-treatment. Management is of the view that it acted appropriately at all times but very much regrets any unintentional distress caused to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of a worker under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, concerning the Company’s procedures for dealing with the Claimant’s medical certificates and management’s approach when dealing with staff concerns over a possible contagious illness.
The Union submitted that the Company did not follow fair procedures when dealing with the Claimant and as a result she was treated in an undignified and unacceptable manner by a senior Manager.
Management submitted that it had acted in good faith and its actions were dictated by its responsibilities of duty and care to all employees. The Court was informed that the senior Manager in question had apologised to the Claimant.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that management could have handled the situation in a more sensitive and structured manner.
The Court notes that at the hearing itself the senior member of management in question gave a full and generous apology to the Claimant and recognised that she is and has been a valuable member of staff for twenty two years.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the apology given by management should be accepted in good faith in resolution of the issues before the Court and furthermore that the Company in conjunction with the Union should devise a policy and procedure should a similar situation recur in the future to include staff concerns.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st May 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.