ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009543
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Operative | A Security Company |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00012453-001 | 13/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The complainant has been employed since March 1998. His then employer was the subject of a TUPE transfer in 2010. He earns €493.00 for a thirty nine hour week. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had been working a forty-eight hour week. Following the transfer of undertakings this was reduced to forty hours. The complainant accepted in evidence that this was a general reduction that applied to all his co-workers. His ‘contracted hours’ are defined in the takeover documentation as forty-eight hours. The matter has been the subject of some discussion between the parties and was eventually referred to the WRC for a decision in July 2017. The complainant has been on extended sick leave since January 2012 and is concerned about a return to work that might be on terms which he would not be able to fulfil. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent agreed that hours had been reduced but said that this reflected a downturn in business and was common throughout the industry at that time. Despite the complainant’s long term sick leave he continues to be an employee. The respondent is willing to enter discussion with the complainant about a possible return to work on terms that will take account of his health needs. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the face of it, this seems like an unusual referral. It was received in the WRC some four and a half years after the complainant last worked. However, underlying that is a somewhat different story of the complainant’s health difficulties. It seems obvious to say that the overriding objective should be to facilitate the complainant’s return to work on mutually agreeable terms. The respondent showed commendable willingness to do so and this is also clearly the preference of the complainant and his trade union. Obviously, the matter of his hours now falls to be dealt with as part of those discussions and will need to take account of current business conditions in the industry and the complainant’s health and capacity. However, I commend both parties on the evident good will to seek a mutually acceptable solution. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that discussions begin immediately between the respondent and the complainant and his trade union to establish a basis for a return to work by the complainant and subject to medical confirmation of his fitness to return on whatever terms might be mutually agreed. |
Dated: 20 November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Long term illness, reasonable accommodation |