Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD92366
Case Number: LCR13719
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: NEC SEMICONDUCTORS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the dismissal of two workers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is quite satisfied that the offence committed by the workers
fully warranted the penalty of dismissal as imposed by the
Company.
In the circumstances the Court does not consider that it can
recommend their reinstatement but, taking account of the
prevailing culture within the Company, and having taken very
particular note of the offending workers undertaking of future
good behaviour, the Court recommends that the Company offers to
reemploy the two men under the same terms and conditions as new
employees when the next suitable vacancies occur.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92366 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13719
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: NEC SEMICONDUCTORS IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of NEC Corporation of Japan and
is engaged in the assembly and testing of integrated circuits at
its plant in Bollivor, Co. Meath. It commenced operations in 1976
and currently employs 400 people.
3. The Company operates 4-shift continuous working. The workers
concerned were employed on the 7.00p.m. to 7.00a.m. shift. As a
result of a routine inspection tour by a security officer one of
the workers was found out of area on 11th February, 1992. The
Company investigated the matter. It discovered that over a period
of time worker A, who had responsibility for the area in question,
allowed worker B into his area so that he could have a sleep
during working hours.
4. Following the investigation both workers were dismissed from
their employment on 24th February, 1992. In meetings with the
Company the Union did not dispute the facts of the case and sought
clemency on behalf of the workers as it considered there were
extenuating circumstances in this case.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on 25th March, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 7th
May, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the
consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation on 23rd June 1992 under
Section 26(1)(a](b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Court hearing took place on 10th July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers have long service with the Company and up to
the incident in question both had discipline free records.
2. The Union acknowledges that sleeping at work is a
serious offence and may lead to dismissal. In view of the
workers' clean discipline record and their forthright
attitude dismissal was too harsh as a penalty.
3. There are other discipline options which could be
exercised and have the desired effect without undermining the
Company's authority.
4. The Company has shown leniency in the past in other
discipline cases. (Details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company has acted fairly and correctly in the
investigations made and procedures followed. (Details
supplied to the Court).
2. The workers had sufficient service with the Company to
be aware of the importance attached to discharging
responsibilities conscientiously. Both would have been aware
of the importance of the security of Company's finished goods
and of its concern for same.
3. The workers have, by their own actions, broken the bond
of trust between employer and employee.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is quite satisfied that the offence committed by the workers
fully warranted the penalty of dismissal as imposed by the
Company.
In the circumstances the Court does not consider that it can
recommend their reinstatement but, taking account of the
prevailing culture within the Company, and having taken very
particular note of the offending workers undertaking of future
good behaviour, the Court recommends that the Company offers to
reemploy the two men under the same terms and conditions as new
employees when the next suitable vacancies occur.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th July, 1992 John O'Connell
M.D./M.H. -------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.