AD1368

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-123565-ir-12/JOC.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Claimant said that he was unfairly subjected to disciplinary procedures and unfair treatment on his return to work following a lengthy absence.

• The Employer said that the Claimant submitted a grievance which was investigated and an apology was issued to him by a senior Manager.
  
  
  
  This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 27^thFebruary 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
  • “Having considered the evidence as presented I find the Claimant was treated unfairly and subjected to a disciplinary procedure without prior notification and also recognise that the disciplinary procedure was not carried out in accordance with the respondent’s guidelines.
    
    I find that the letter by the Operations Performance Manager Mr X highlights the issues and areas in which the Claimant had been significantly dealt with in an inconsistent manner in comparison with work colleagues in a similar situation.
    
    I recommend the Respondent pay the Claimant €2,500 in compensation in full and settlement of his claim.

On the 28th March 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 12^th September 2013.

WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Claimant was on sick leave (2003-2007 & 2007–2009) due to an occupational injury for approximately six years. On his return to work in 2009 he was not given support akin to a package of measure for a new entrant. As a result he was left feeling vulnerable.

2. He was wrongly suspended in September 2011 and stood down from duty. He was obliged to undertake a rigorous four-week training programme which necessitated him driving a 300km round trip daily.

3. He suffered significant stress and ill health as a result of these events.


EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Claimant returned to work following a long absence and completed the Emergency Medical Paramedic Programme in 2007 and thus was eligible to register with the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care (PHECC).

2. In March 2011 Management became aware that the Claimant was not registered for the PHECC. He was asked at a local level to register and was given a period of time to address this issue. The Claimant was told that he could not work as a frontline EMT if he was not registered as it was a mandatory requirement.

3. The Claimant was then assessed and a number of skills competency deficits were identified. A training programme was identified and the Claimant was given a vehicle to attend training in south-east locations. The Claimant submitted a grievance which was investigated and an apology was issued to him by a senior Manager. The Claimant continues in his role as an EMT Paramedic.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by a worker of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found that he was unfairly treated and subjected to a disciplinary procedure without prior notification and not in accordance with the employer’s guidelines. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the employer should pay the Appellant the sum of €2,500 in full and final settlement of his claim.

The Appellant appealed the Recommendation on the basis that he sought a corporate apology from the employer, reimbursement of expenses incurred and payment in lieu of lost premium payments.

Having considered the submissions made and the facts presented by both sides, the Court notes that following his stage two grievance a written report on the matter was furnished to the Appellant. This report upheld his grievance, and a copy of the report was forwarded to his Area Operations Manager, following which Senior Management issued an apology to him.

Management confirmed at the hearing before the Court that in the event that the Appellant submits a claim for expenses incurred they will be dealt with in the normal manner.

In all the circumstances of this appeal, the Court can see no reason to vary the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.

It is the decision of the Court that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner be affirmed and the appeal disallowed.

The Court so Decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
25th September, 2013.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.