FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KELLOR SERVICES IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SIGITA DZIUGIENE (REPRESENTED BY SHEEHAN RYAN & COMPANY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Mistreatment after return to work from maternity leave
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns an allegation by the Claimant of mistreatment following her return to work from maternity leave.
On the 26th June 2012, the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court 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 the 13th March 2013. The Employer did not attend the hearing or outline its position to the Court in correspondence.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant started working for the Company on January 2006 as an Office Clerk. The Company paid for her to attend a Certified Accounts Technician course and in September 2010 she achieved third place in Ireland. She worked in the purchasing office in the morning and in the General Manager’s office after lunch.
2. In 2009 she became pregnant with her second child. She agreed with the Personnel Manager to extend her maternity leave to accommodate her studies for the Accounts course.
3. In December 2010 the Claimant returned to work and was told to report to the Service Department, but was advised it would only be for two months and she would then move to the credit control office. She was not given any training for the Service Department and her level of English was criticised. The Claimant was not moved to the credit control office or given suitable alternative work on her return from maternity leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter came before the Court by was of a referral under the Industrial Relation Act 1969. The Court finds it regrettable that the Employer did not avail of the opportunity to attend the hearing and put forward its version of the events giving rise to this dispute.
The Court had before it a lengthy and comprehensive submission on behalf of the Claimant in which facts were asserted which indicate that the Claimant was badly treated by her work colleagues. Furthermore, she asserts that she was subject to mistreatment by her Employer in relation to her return from Maternity Leave and in the manner in which she was supervised.
In that regard, on the uncontested submissions of the Claimant, it appears that her treatment fell far short of the standard of reasonableness that an employee is entitled to expect in employment.
It is noted that the Complainant is not seeking a recommendation from this Court for compensation or any other form of redress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
27th March, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.