INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Filling of a vacancy (Ballymacfrane, Co Roscommon).
2. The worker has been acting as relief person at Ballymacfrane Level Crossing for 15 years . Her husband is the resident gate crossing-keeper.
Following negotiations in 2000, an agreement was reached with the Union and the Company that each crossing-keeper would work a maximum of 12 hours only. As this crossing was a 24 hour crossing, a second person was required to work there.
The worker applied for the position but was advised that she would have to undergo a medical examination and she refused.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of July, 2002, in Athlone.
The Company failed to attend the hearing but did communicate with the Court by letter.
3. 1. When low wages were being paid to gatekeepers, no-one wanted the job and family was left to cover holidays and days off, relief was never available. Now that a minimum wage is in force, those who have best service under the worse conditions have been cast aside.
2. When the worker commenced employment with the Company, no medical was required for gatekeepers, yet she did undergo a medical examination.
3. The worker has her own PRSI number and her own clock number and it is unfair that she is required to undergo another medical examination.
The Company failed to attend the hearing of this case but did communicate with the Court by letter. The Court regards the Company's decision not to participate as regrettable.
Having carefully considered the submissions of the Union, the Court cannot see any basis on which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim. The requirement to undergo a medical examination applies to all candidates for permanent employment. The Court can see no reason as to why this requirement should not apply to the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th July, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.