INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
MAHON MCPHILLIPS LIMITED
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Walsh
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW131/96.
2. The appeal concerns a worker who was employed as a general operative from May, 1995 to February, 1996. On Friday, 9th February he received one week's notice from the Company terminating his employment on the 16th February, 1996. Two other workers with less service than the claimant were retained in the employment. On enquiring from management about this situation, the worker was informed that the Company would decide as to who would be retained and who would be let go. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commission for investigation and recommendation. on the 4th December, 1996 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
- "I recommend that the Company offers, and the worker accepts, the sum of £300 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 18th January, 1997 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Mullingar on the 8th April, 1997. The Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
3. 1. When the Union met the Company to discuss the worker's dismissal it emphasised that, all things being equal, the dismissal should have been implemented on a seniority basis. Two junior workers were retained and work continued on site until August, 1996.
2. The Union accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation of £300 at the time, however, when it sought the payment no response was received from management. The Union feels that it is incumbent on the Company to implement the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
3. While the Union accepts that the 'last in, first out' policy is not sacrosanct in the industry and clearly defined skills must be retained nevertheless where workers are similarly graded and skilled, seniority must apply when choosing workers for dismissal.
4. The worker concerned has an exemplary record in the employment.
5. The Union seeks compensation in the amount of £5,000 which reflects the loss of earnings incurred by the worker due to his unfair selection for dismissal by the Company.
The Company did not attend the hearing.
The Court having considered the information before it upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th April, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.