INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
1. Alleged constructive dismissal.
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a temporary operative. He commenced employment as an aircraft loader on the 24th February, 1995 and was based in the Ground Operations Department at Dublin Airport.
His duties involved working as a member of a cabin service crew with one other aircraft loader. Their duties included the collection and delivery of food and bar carts from the catering section to the aircraft and also their return when the aircraft returned to Dublin. Aircraft bars are security sealed.
On the 5th August, 1995 the worker made statements both oral and written that he had witnessed another employee tampering with the security seal on incoming bars on a particular flight. An investigation took place but did not proceed as the evidence presented could not be corroborated.
The worker resigned his employment with the Company on the 22nd September, 1995 as a result of threats and intimidation from other employees.
The Company rejects the claim that the worker was constructively dismissed. He was considered for a transfer, but the worker resigned his position because he had secured alternative employment. The Company objected to a Rights Commissioner investigating the dispute. The worker then requested that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th July, 1996.
3. 1. When the worker reported the theft of alcohol from a sealed bar, the supervisor should have warned him of the consequences of his actions i.e.the reaction of the rest of the staff.
2. Some of the staff broke into his locker and vandalised some personal items. He was also subjected to verbal abuse. The Company failed to take the necessary steps to stop the intimidation and abuse.
3. As a result of continued intimidation the worker had no option but to resign. The Company were unable to be of any assistance to him.
4. 1. The worker voluntarily resigned his employment with the Company. He secured alternative employment. His resignation was in accordance with his contract of employment.
2. The Company facilitated the worker with time off on full pay to explore the possibility of a possible transfer to another section.
3. The Company was happy with the worker regarding his work performance during his period of temporary employment and invited him to apply for some permanent posts which arose during the year.
4. Although the worker was not successful in obtaining one of the permanent posts the Company was prepared to consider him for further employment. The Company also provided a reference for the worker when requested to do so by FAS.
The Court accepts that it was not the intention of the Company to isolate the worker concerned or in any way contribute to his decision to resign.
The Company assured the Court of their willingness to consider the worker concerned for future employment.
The Court recommends the worker accepts this assurance as a means of resolving this dispute for both parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th July, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.