INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
GOLD FORCE SECURITY MANAGEMENT.
(REPRESENTED BY ESA)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-040349-Ir-06/Di.
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-040349-Ir-06/Di. The case concerns an employee who feels she was treated unfairly with regard to the cessation of her employment and was not offered suitable alternative employment by her employer.
The Company provides Security personnel at retail outlets and the worker in question was employed by a client of the Company. The client allegedly requested the Security Company to change its security personnel at its premises. The Company position in this case is that it had no option but to accede to the request of its client. The Company also claims to have made every effort to offer alternative suitable employment to the worker but it was not accepted.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners Service of the Labour Relations Commission. His recommendation issued on the 4th September, 2006 and on the basis of the uncontested evidence of the worker found in her favour and awarded €3,000 compensation.
On the 12th September, 2006 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th April, 2007.
3 1 The Company dismissed the worker without providing adequate notice or explaining the reason for the dismissal.
2 The alternative work that was offered was in Waterford or Limerick which was impossible to accept on the basis of the travelling distance. The Company have since gained new clients in the area but no job offer was made to the worker.
4 1 The Company had no option but to remove the worker from the clients premises having been requested to do so by its client. At the time it had no alternative work to offer in Cork. It did have work in Limerick or Waterford but the offer of work in these locations was not accepted by the worker.
2 The Company did continue to pay the worker while it sought alternative employment for her. When this was unsuccessful, the Company paid the worker one weeks pay in lieu of notice, as is its obligation.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the manner in which the Claimant was treated fell far short of the standards of reasonableness which any employee is entitled to expect.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court regards the conclusions and the recommendation of Rights Commissioner as appropriate.
Accordingly the recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.