FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No. r-159070-ir-15/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he turned down a position based on inaccurate information given to him and therefore causing him great distress. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 15th April, 2016 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that the Employer pay the Claimant compensation in the sum of €6,000.00c within 6 weeks of the date of this recommendation/decision for the unfair way they handled this matter and the injustice done to the Claimant. I wish to confirm that this sum awarded is not wages or arrears of wages. In addition I recommend that the Claimant be offered the first available similar position in the Area."
On the 13th May, 2016 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 5th July, 2016.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by SIPTU on behalf of a Claimant of an Adjudication
Officer's Recommendation which found in favour of his claim, awarded
him compensation of €6,000 and recommended that he should be offered
the first available similar position in the Area.
The Claimant claimed that he had been incorrectly informed that the base
for the newly created post of Area Director of Nursing for which he was
eligible to apply was to be located in Galway City. As the Claimant
lived in Strokestown, Co. Roscommon, it did not suit him to apply for the
position. It later transpired that the newly appointed person's base was
located at Roscommon Town and this location would have been suitable for him. He
claimed that as a result he not only lost out on a valuable opportunity, one
which attracted premium payments, but he now has to continue to travel an additional
164 kilometres per week to his base in Cavan. He sought to be compensated
for the distress and financial loss and submitted to the Court that the
Adjudication Officer's award was insufficient considering all the
circumstances of this case.
The Court notes that the sole issue on appeal relates to the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Adjudication Officer. Having considered the
submissions made the Court notes that the Complainant's base has not
changed as a result of any of the matter referred to above and therefore his
"loss" relates to a lost opportunity and in such circumstances the Court is
of the view that the finding and recommendation of the Adjudication
Officer is reasonable in the circumstances and accordingly upholds the
Recommendation.
The Claimant's appeal fails and the Adjudication Officer's
Recommendation is upheld.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th July, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.