FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SPECIALISED STERILE ENVIRONMENTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation r-117923-ir-11.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was a cleaner and said he was dismissed for complaining about the travel expenses he had to incur whilst working for the company.
- The Employer said the Claimant resigned and was issued with a P45.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 3rd July 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “The Claimant submits that initially he was supplied with work in the Tuam area and that he worked in excess of 39 hours per week. From about February 2010 he was asked to work in the Shannon area. Initially he travelled in a company vehicle and was paid travelling time. Thereafter he was informed that he would be obliged to travel in his own car and only be paid for on-site time. He obliged for a period but complained when it was obvious that it was financially prohibitive. The respondent told him that if he did not agree to travel to Shannon on that basis he would not have a job. Here was not provided with any hours from the 12thOctober until 30thNovember 2010. His P45 issued thereafter. The respondent issued a letter of dismissal to the claimant dated 1stNovember 2010 which, the claimant believes does not accurately reflect the actual reason for the same.
The respondent submits that the claimant was employed in a part-time position as a floating cleaner. He was employed to provide cover and as additional resource if and when required. In mid-September 2010 he attended at the respondent’s office to request a letter of dismissal. Thereafter he was approached by the operations manager in relation to work available in the Galway area, which he refused stating that he would only work in the Tuam area. Following his subsequent request for his P45 the same was issued on the 22ndOctober 2010.
The submission of the respondent is preferred in relation to the circumstances of this case. I am not therefore in a position to declare this is a wrongful dismissal and recommend accordingly.”
- “The Claimant submits that initially he was supplied with work in the Tuam area and that he worked in excess of 39 hours per week. From about February 2010 he was asked to work in the Shannon area. Initially he travelled in a company vehicle and was paid travelling time. Thereafter he was informed that he would be obliged to travel in his own car and only be paid for on-site time. He obliged for a period but complained when it was obvious that it was financially prohibitive. The respondent told him that if he did not agree to travel to Shannon on that basis he would not have a job. Here was not provided with any hours from the 12thOctober until 30thNovember 2010. His P45 issued thereafter. The respondent issued a letter of dismissal to the claimant dated 1stNovember 2010 which, the claimant believes does not accurately reflect the actual reason for the same.
On the 23rd April 2013 the Claimant 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 11th October 2013.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was hired by word of mouth and collected from a roadside location.
2. Management should at the outset have advised the Claimant that travel was a condition of employment.
3. He was dismissed when he complained about the cost associated with the additional travel introduced without consultation or agreement.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In mid-September the claimant was contacted by the Operations Manager and offered work in the Galway area. He refused and said he would only work in Tuam.
2. The Operations Manager told him there was no work available in the Tuam area.
3. At his request he was issued with a P45.
DECISION:
In this case there is a complete divergence between the parties concerning the circumstances in which the Claimant’s employment came to an end. The Company contends that he was offered work which he refused to accept and resigned. The Unions contends that he was dismissed.
In these circumstances it is for the Claimant to establish that he was in fact dismissed. Having heard from both parties the Court is not satisfied that it can prefer the Claimant’s version of events over that of the Company. In these circumstances the Court cannot find a basis upon which it could interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
30th October, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.