FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS LTD T/A G4S - AND - EOIN SHEERAN (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-132763-ir-13/MH.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mr Eoin Sheeran (the Complainant) was employed by G4S Secure Solutions ltd (the Respondent) as a security officer with effect from 1 October 2010. Under his contract of employment he was subject he could be assigned work in any location in which the Company carried out business. At the time of the instant complaints he was assigned to work at the Cadbury site which attracts the payment of an allowance in excess of his normal contractual rate of pay.
On the 13/14 August 2012 the Company instructed the Claimant to train a new security officer on the security procedures effective on the Cadbury site. The Claimant states that, in accordance with the site manual, he contacted the relevant management staff seeking relief cover to enable him to provide the new officer with the relevant training. He claims that the relief he sought was not forthcoming but that he nevertheless proceeded to deliver the relevant training to the new security officer. He claims that in answer to an enquiry from a member of the management team the following day he advised that he had discharged his duties in accordance with the site manual and procedures. In October 2012 he was advised that he was being transferred at short notice from the site because of his failure to deliver the relevant training to the assigned officer on August 13/14th. He contested that assertion and appealed against the transfer. The appeal was not successful and he referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner found for the Claimant. The Company appealed against that recommendation to the Labour Court.
Complainant’s Position
- The Claimant argues that he delivered the relevant training to the assigned security officer and that in doing so he at all times acted in accordance with the site manual in the manner in which he delivered the relevant training. He submitted a statement from the officer in question confirming that he had received the relevant training from the Claimant on the 13/14 August 2012.
- He argues that as his transfer was occasioned by an alleged failure on his part to carry out an instruction from his manager he was entitled to have that matter properly processed through the grievance and disciplinary procedures in place in the Company. He states that he was not afforded access to those procedures until after the decision to transfer him had been taken and implemented.
- He argues that around the time the decision to transfer him was taken he had made a complaint regarding matters of safety, health and welfare at work to both the Safety Officer and his employer. He argues that the manager that decided to transfer him made enquiries regarding the origin of those complaints. He states that immediately after he established that the Claimant had made them he took and implemented the decision to transfer him with the consequent loss of income and damage to his record with the Company.
Respondent’s Position
- The Company argues that the Claimant is employed on the basis that he may be transferred to any site at which the Company carries out business. It argues that staff must be transferable at the discretion of management to meet the business needs of the Company and to protect the security of employment of all of the staff.
- It argues that the Claimant did not suffer a loss of income as a result of the transfer. It states that the Claimant's hourly rate of pay was unaltered. It acknowledged that the Claimant lost the site specific allowance on transfer. It argues that this is a common occurrence where staff are transferred and the Claimant is in no different a position to any other member of staff in this regard.
- The Company rejects the assertion that the transfer was a reaction to a complaint the Claimant made under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. It asserts that the reason for the transfer arose out the Claimant's refusal to undertake the training of an officer on August 13/14th when directed to do so.
DECISION:
The Court finds that the Complainant is entitled to the benefit of fair procedure before he is disciplined by way of transfer with consequent loss of a site allowance. The Court finds that the Respondent failed to afford the Complainant such procedures in this case. The Court accordingly decides that the decision of Rights Commissioner in this regard is fair and reasonable and is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th August, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.