FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : M & S MACHINERY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY DAS GROUP) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY JJ FITZGERALD & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Issues of a general nature and also concerning overtime, verbal and written warnings, training and safety footwear.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker resides in Cahir, Co Tipperary and has worked for the employer for in excess of 14 years. He is the longest serving member of staff at the Company and works as a mechanic. The Company is engaged in the sale and service of agricultural and construction machinery.
The Company was run as a partnership until approximately January 2006 when one partner left the business. Since then the principal of the Company has been running the business.
From the 6th January 2006 the Worker claims that he has not received any overtime whatsoever, although he consistently worked overtime in the years prior to this. The Worker also submits that he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and received a verbal and written warning without justification. The Worker also has issues concerning the denial of training and safety footwear.
The Worker is seeking compensation for the loss of overtime, proper safety training and clothing as necessary and the withdrawal of the verbal and written warning from his record.
The issues could not be resolved at local level. The Worker referred a claim to the Labour Court on the 16th July, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th October, 2008.
The Employer failed to attend the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that over the 10 years up to 2005 he worked an average of 794 hours overtime. This ceased from January 2006 and the Worker maintains that there was plenty of overtime available.
2. The Worker contends that there was no basis to a verbal warning being issued following his meeting with the Company in December 2006.
3. The Worker maintains that in the past two and a half years he has not been afforded the opportunity to attend any technical training courses while his work colleagues have received these opportunities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's representative submitted a letter to the Court stating that the Company did not wish to attend the hearing and claiming that there is no trade dispute and that therefore there is no case to answer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer failed to attend the hearing or to otherwise communicate with the Court in relation to the Claimant's grievances.
In relation to the claims, as presented, the Court recommends as follows:-
Overtime
The Claimant should receive an equitable allocation of available overtime, in line with that allocated to other employees of the Company.
Verbal and Written Warnings
On the uncontradicted submissions made on behalf of the Claimant, the Court is satisfied that the process of investigating complaints against the Claimant was procedurally flawed. In these circumstances the imposition of verbal and written warnings was unfair. The Court recommends that the warnings should be withdrawn and expunged from the workers record.
Training and Safety Footwear
The Court recommends that the Complainant should be afforded to undertaking training programmes which are available to other employees of the Company. The Claimant should also be provided such safety clothing and footwear as is necessary for the safe performance of his duties.
General
On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the Claimant, and having considered the documentation furnished to the Court, it seems clear that there are serious difficulties in the relationship between the Claimant and his employer. It is in the interests of both parties to address these issues in an effective and cooperative manner before the viability of the relationship is undermined. The Court is of the view that both parties could benefit from the services of a skilled and experienced mediator in seeking to address and resolve these difficulties. If both parties request it to do so the Court would be prepared to nominate a suitable person to provide such a service and to assist further in defining the terms of reference for such an intervention.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th October, 2008.______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.