Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9120 Case Number: AD9110 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MAYBIN INDUSTRIAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST417/90 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a cleaner.
Recommendation:
3. Having reviewed the evidence concerning the incident involved
in this case, the Court considers that the workers response to
legitimate instructions and her aggressive attitude to the
supervisor were totally unacceptable. The Court accepts that the
supervisor was struck by the vacuum cleaner but has doubts as to
whether this was an intentional result of the action of the worker
in throwing down the cleaner. Because of its doubts, the Court is
reluctant to uphold the dismissal of the worker.
The Court therefore considers that the decision to dismiss the
worker should be withdrawn and be replaced by suspension without
pay from the date of the incident. The worker should be
reinstated from Monday 11th February, 1991. The worker should
also receive a final warning in writing regarding her future
conduct on the job.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9120 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 to 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MAYBIN INDUSTRIAL LIMITED
(Represented by David Walley and Co. Solicitors)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. ST417/90 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a cleaner.
BACKGROUND:
2. Further to the Court's investigation of the matter, the
following is the Court's recommendation.
DECISION:
3. Having reviewed the evidence concerning the incident involved
in this case, the Court considers that the workers response to
legitimate instructions and her aggressive attitude to the
supervisor were totally unacceptable. The Court accepts that the
supervisor was struck by the vacuum cleaner but has doubts as to
whether this was an intentional result of the action of the worker
in throwing down the cleaner. Because of its doubts, the Court is
reluctant to uphold the dismissal of the worker.
The Court therefore considers that the decision to dismiss the
worker should be withdrawn and be replaced by suspension without
pay from the date of the incident. The worker should be
reinstated from Monday 11th February, 1991. The worker should
also receive a final warning in writing regarding her future
conduct on the job.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
________________________
1st February, 1991 Chairman.
B.O'N/U.S.