FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-1311124-IR-13/JOC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-1311124-IR-13/JOC. The dispute refers to the Worker's claim that he was treated in an inequitable manner by his Employer following the alleged occurrence of an incident during the course of the Worker's regular duties. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that the Worker was treated fairly and was not subjected to any disciplinary or punitive sanctions.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 25th November 2013, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
- "I recommend that eight weeks of certified sick leave be converted to special leave with pay, thereby reducing the total certified sick leave days year to date recorded for the Claimant. This will change the number of sick leave days for the Claimant, in terms of his entitlement to paid sick leave under the Respondent's Sick Pay Scheme".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was unilaterally removed from his duties.
2. The Employer acted in breach of the principles of natural justice and furthermore breached its own Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
3. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking compensation as a result of the Employer's unfair treatment of the Worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that it acted fair and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case.
2. The Employer maintains that at no stage was the Worker subjected to disciplinary action and no sanction was imposed on him.
3. The Employer contends that there is no compensation owing to the Worker in this instance.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows:
1. The Council acted within its authority when it required the Claimant to attend a health and safety related driving skills course. The requirement to do so did not amount to disciplinary action and the Claimant was not entitled to refuse to attend the course.2. The Court notes that the Council protected the Claimant’s earnings while he was absent from work on sick leave and while the matter in dispute was processed through procedures. The Court finds no merit in the Union’s claim for additional compensation arising out of the manner in which the incident was dealt with by the Council.
3. The Court notes that the Council in the course of the hearing indicated that it would make good any outstanding shortfall in wages during the relevant period.
4. Finally in an effort to bring closure to this matter the Court increases from 8 to 12 weeks the period of sick leave to be reclassified as special leave as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
28th April 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.