FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TARA CLADDING LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Claim for reinstatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to his redeployment within the Company. It is the Worker's claim that his Employer unilaterally took the decision to redeploy him from his position of CAD/CAM Developer and IT Administrator into a General Operative position.
On the 9th January, 2019 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd May, 2019. The Employer was not present and was not represented at the hearing.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Worker has worked with Tara Cladding Limited (‘the Company’) since July 2007. He was initially employed as a Data Entry Clerk but was promoted to the position of CAD/CAM Developer and IT Administrator in 2008.
It appears the volume of new business acquired by the Company grew significantly from about 2014 onwards. In 2017, the Worker found himself working extensive overtime at weekends in order to keep up with volume of work he was required to complete. He complained of work-related stress and went out on sick leave for a brief period in August and again in late November 2017. He did not return from this period of sick leave until 3 September 2018. He did not receive his Christmas bonus for 2017 as a consequence of his absence from work at that time.
Much of the CAD/CAM work previously performed by the Worker prior to his extended period of sick leave was outsourced during his absence. At a return to work meeting that took place on 30 August 2018, the Worker’s Manager informed him that there was no longer a position of CAD/CAM Developer/IT Administrator available because that work had been outsourced. The Worker was offered a General Operative position on the same salary he had been paid prior to going on sick leave. The Worker accepted this under protest, returned to the workplace and raised a grievance in relation to his demotion. This grievance was not investigated by the Company.
The Company was not represented at the hearing before the Court.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Worker be reinstated in his role as CAD/CAM Developer and IT Administrator with effect from the date of this Recommendation. His rate of pay should be increased from the date of his reinstatement to include the 10% pay increase granted to his colleagues in May 2018. A monthly meeting should take place between the Worker and his manager to review the Worker’s workload and the progression of work in hands. Finally, the Court recommends that the Company should give the Worker the Christmas bonus denied to him in December 2017.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
25th June 2019______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.