AD9685

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/506 APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD9685 (ST168/96) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FURLONG CARPETS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member:

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST 168/96.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the worker that he was unfairly demoted following disciplinary action taken by the Company. As a result he has suffered a reduction in salary from £215.00 per week to £170.00 per week .

The Company claims that the worker was in breach of procedures in the handling of returned products to the factory. The worker was suspended for 2 weeks without pay following an internal investigation by management into missing carpet rolls at the plant. He was given a different job with less pay when he resumed his duties.

The worker rejects the claim that he was negligent in his duties and claims that he has been unfairly treated by the Company.

The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 15th July, 1996 and in his recommendation ST 168/96 recommended that:-

1. "The Claimant receive pay due for the period of suspension which he suffered in March 1996.



2. The Employer agrees to restore his pay to the level promised in the letter to him dated the 8th March 1996 and this will be effected from the 1st May 1996. The loss between the March and April is on foot of the Claimant's limited culpability in the matter of the real losses suffered by the Company on re-delivered returned stock.

3. The Claimant agrees to resume work at his present post and he also agrees to facilitate the Company with all overtime work properly requested by his Superior. He will also agree to perform any work which is appropriate to his higher rate of pay as requested from time to time by Management".

(The worker was not named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).

The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 12th September, 1996. The Court heard the appeal on the 20th November, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3 1. The worker claims that the penalty imposed on him by the Company was severe in relation to the alleged offence.

2. The worker has suffered stress related sickness as a result of this dispute with the Company.

3. The worker claims that the Company accepts that he had nothing to do with the missing carpet rolls.

4. The worker claims that he has given loyal service to the Company and rejects the allegations of the Company.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker was in breach of procedures in the handling of returned products to the factory.

2. The worker refused on a number of occasions to do overtime when requested to by his supervisor.

3. The Company accepted the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and paid all monies due to the worker.




DECISION:

The payments made by the Company to the claimant fully discharge the terms of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and should be accepted as full and final settlement of the issue.

The Court so decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Tom McGrath
6th December, 1996______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.