FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-122156-ir-12/GC.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's removal from a particular site during an internal investigation. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 21st November, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I find that the [Company] carried out a full and fair investigation."
On the 28th November, 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 6th March, 2012.UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has been no formal disciplinary sanctions taken against the Worker.
2.The Worker's permanent removal from the site was unreasonable and cost the Worker a significant drop in his earnings.
3.The Worker should be compensated 1.5 times the annual loss.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Mobility is an integral and accepted norm within the security industry.
2.All staff have seen their earnings shrink due to a reduction of hours available.
3.The Company has attempted to minimise the disruption to the Worker by relocating him to a site nearer his home
.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute. The Court finds that the manner in which the Company dealt with this dispute was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
However, the Court notesthat the Worker involved was relocated away from his normal place of work on a 'without prejudice' basis pending the completion of the Company's investigation into the matter. In the course of the Court hearing into the dispute it emerged that the Worker, as a consequence of the relocation, suffered a loss of income while management conducted the investigation.
The Court finds that the relocation of the Worker was, therefore 'with prejudice' to his income and was contrary to the commitment management gave him when the move was effected. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Worker is entitled to compensation for the loss of income involved.
The Court has decided therefore to uphold the appeal and award the Worker compensation in the sum of €850. The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st May, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.