FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS PLC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MS SARAH O'MAHONEY B.L., INSTRUCTED BY HENNESSY & PERROZZI, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-132885-IR-13/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of part of a Rights Commissioner's RecommendationR-132885-IR-13/DI. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's appeal of a sanction imposed on him following an internal investigation carried out on foot of allegations made against the Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th November 2013, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation, in part, as follows:
"Having fully considered the submissions made by the parties I am not satisfied that the Claimant was afforded the right to fair procedure or that the investigation, disciplinary and appeals processes were carried out in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, I also recognise that there are issues relating to the Claimant's style of supervision that are of concern to the Respondent. In the circumstances, I recommend the following in full and final settlement of this matter:
- That the Claimant would be limited to minimal supervisory activities, as determined by the Respondent, for a period of up to 6 months. During this period the Claimant will engage fully with the Respondent's EAP and any other development or training programmes the Respondent deems appropriate in developing the Claimant's supervisory skills"
On the 19th December, 2013 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation which related to minimal supervisory activities to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th February, 2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that he has encountered difficulties in operating in his employment while he is unable to take on a supervisory role.
2. The Worker is seeking to return to his full supervisory duties with immediate effect.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the temporary removal of the Worker from his supervisory role was a rehabilitative rather than punitive measure.
2. The Employer is of the view that the Worker will in the future be allowed to return to his previous supervisory role once he has complied with the requirements of the Employer.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the worker of one aspect of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in the circumstances of the case that the Appellant should be limited to minimal supervisory activities, as determined by the Respondent, for a period of up to 6 months. The Rights Commissioner recommended that during the six-month period the Appellant should fully engage with the Respondent’s Employee Assistance Programme and with any other development or training programmes it deems appropriate to develop the Appellant’s supervisory skills. This aspect of the Recommendation was not appealed and the Appellant stated that he was fully committed to this plan.
Having considered all aspects of the Appellant's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's findings and upholds his Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st February 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.