FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES GROUP LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-126082-ir-12/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that the Company reassign him to a specific site on his return to work following an extended period of sick leave. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th March, 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "The [Worker's] terms of employment clearly state the [Company's] right to move staff to varying sites where they have contracts within reasonable travelling distance. The [Company] is well within their rights to assign the [Worker] to an appropriate site ... I do not find the [Worker's] case well founded and it fails"
On the 10th April, 2013 the Employee 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 25th March, 2014.
3. 1. The Company initially said that it had the right to assign the Worker to any location.
2.The Company then incorrectly told the Worker that the Client objected to him returning to work at this site.
3.The Worker believes the Company punished the Worker because of his trade union activities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company has a fundamental right to reassign staff according to its business needs.
2.This right is set out in the terms of employment and is the norm in the industry.
3.The Worker is attempting to deny the Company this right to reassign staff.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a Claimant of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against his claim seeking to be re-assigned to his position as Static Guard at the Company’s University of Limerick site on resumption of his employment following an extended period of sick leave.
The Claimant had been on sick leave due to an accident from January 2010. He sought to return to work in August 2011 but was informed that a position was no longer available at the University of Limerick site and that he was being assigned elsewhere. Due to his long service at the University site, the Claimant refused to work in another location, he sought an immediate return to his role on the University of Limerick site and compensation for the loss of earning he had sustained in the meantime.
The Employer informed the Court that due to changes brought about in the contract with the University of Limerick, contracted hours and numbers employed on the site were reduced in December 2010. Officers were moved off site and reassigned to other contracts within the Limerick area. The Claimant was offered other sites within a reasonable distance of his home, these were refused.
Having considered the submissions made, the Court notes that both parties fully accept the mobility clause as contained in the Company’s terms and conditions of employment which states:
- Mobility Clause
“it is a condition of employment that you agree to work at any of the company’s contract assignments within reasonable travelling distance from your home to suit the needs of the business and its customers”.
The Court accepts that mobility is an integral part of the Claimant’s terms and conditions of employment and indeed of Security Officers in general within the Security Industry and accordingly cannot find in favour of the Union’s appeal. Furthermore, the Court notes that at the hearing the Company confirmed that there was no restriction on the Claimant working on the University of Limerick site. The Court recommends that the Claimant should accept positions assigned to him by the Company in accordance with his contractual requirements which can include consideration of assignments to the University of Limerick site.
Therefore the Court varies the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation accordingly.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th April, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.