FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-136877-IR-13/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's RecommendationR-136877-IR-13/JT. The dispute relates to the Worker's claim that the sanctions imposed on him in line with internal disciplinary procedures were excessive and harsh in nature. Following a workplace incident the Worker was removed from his usual night duties and a final written warning was placed on his personnel record. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking the removal of the warning and that the Worker be afforded the right to return to night duties. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the sanction of the final written warning has been reduced to a written warning however the Employer is not in a position to return the Worker to night duties.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 3rd January, 2014, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions of both parties including the seperate submission of the Claimant. There may well have been some discrepancies in the Respondent's procedures but as a result of the Claimant's own submission I am convinced that the Respondent's decision was the correct one. They also have shown considerable restrain in reducing the sanction to a formal written warning.
I do not find the Claimant's appeal well founded and it fails".
On the 28th January, 2014, the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 20th March, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that he has been treated in an inequitable manner and the sanctions imposed on him are harsh in nature.
2. The Worker is seeking the removal of the written warning from his personnel file.
3. The Worker is also seeking immediate re-instatement to night duties.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is of the view that the Worker was treated fairly and the disciplinary action taken against him was proportionate in all the circumstances of the case.
2. The Employer is not in a position to return the Worker to night duties at present.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this appeal the Court finds that, in all the circumstances of this case, the sanctions imposed on the Claimant were, in the main, fair, reasonable and proportionate. The Court however does not uphold the decision to permanently remove the Claimant from night duties. It finds that aspect of the decision disproportionate and excessive.
Accordingly the Court finds that the Claimant should, on the same terms as all other employees, be put in a position to apply for consideration for a return to night duty, when a suitable vacancy arises.
With this amendment the Court upholds the decision of the Rights Commissioner and decides accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th April 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.