FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PFIZER NUTRITIONALS IRELAND T/A WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-126269-IR-13.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he suffered a loss of earnings when he was redeployed. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 5th December, 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "The exceptional nature of the circumstances together with the existence of of a compensation settlement lead me to conclude that the manner in which this matter was treated by [the Company] was fair and reasonable and therefore I am not in a position to recommend for [the Worker]."
On the 2nd January, 2014 the Worker 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 1st July, 2014.
3. 1. The Collective Agreement clearly sets out the position in relation to grade transfer.
2.This Collective Agreement forms part of the Worker's terms and conditions of employment.
3.The Company must comply with this Collective Agreement and compensate the Worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Worker was redeployed under exceptional circumstances.
2.The Worker's redeployment was beyond the Employer's control however the Employer acted in every good faith to accommodate the Worker.
3. The Worker's claim for compensation in respect of loss of earnings has previously been dealt with in an alternative forum.
DECISION:
It seems to the Court that the purpose and intent of the agreement in issue is to provide compensatory arrangements in circumstances in which an employee is required to transfer shifts in order to accommodate the requirements of the Company.
In this case the transfer was affected for the purpose of accommodating a need of the Claimant. It was, in effect, to provide the Claimant with reasonable accommodation for his disability. To that extent the facts of this case place it outside the range of circumstances that the agreement was intended cover.
Having regard to the foregoing the Court is satisfied that the conclusion and recommendation under appeal is correct and there is no basis upon which the Court could justifiably interfere with that recommendation. Accordingly, the Court affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and disallows the appeal.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to make it clear that its decision relates to the particular circumstances of this case and should not be regarded as having any wider implication.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th August 2014______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.