INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DULUX IRELAND LTD
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the payment of compensation for alleged unfair dismissal.
The Union is claiming that the employee in question was unfairly treated by his employer and was unfairly dismissed after a prolonged absence due to sick leave.
The Company is claiming that it made every effort to assist the employee with any difficulties that arose both on a professional and personal level but that despite these efforts and clearance by the Company doctor to return to work, the employee failed to do so. The worker also failed to respond to several items of correspondence from the Comny relating to his position. Accordingly, the employer considered that the worker had terminated his employment with the Company.
On the 29th of October, 2004, 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 14th of September, 2005.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. The Company failed to afford the worker his rights pursuant to natural justice and due process.
2.The worker was unfairly dismissed after 30 years of loyal service.
3. The worker was treated badly by the Company and was forced to downgrade to a lesser position within the organisation.
4. 1. The Company made every effort to assist the worker in returning to work. All available options were conveyed to him but were ignored.
2. The Company informed the worker that failure to indicate his intentions with regard to returning to work would result in the Company assuming he had terminated his own employment.
The Union sought a severance package on behalf of a worker when his employment terminated after a prolonged period of absence. The Union was of the view that his long service and loyalty to the Company deserved to be rewarded by the payment of some form of compensation.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court does not accept that there is any basis for the claim and consequently does not find in favour of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th October, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.