INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DELTA SECURITIES LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 320/98.
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a security guard at various locations in Dublin from September, 1997. He claims that he was dismissed on the 25th of April, 1998, without being given a reason for his dismissal. He requested a Rights Commissioner's investigation into the matter. The Rights Commissioner found that the Company may have been entitled to dismiss the worker, but found fault with the abrupt way that it was carried out and with the fact that no reason for his dismissal was given to the worker.
The Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation on the 12th of August, 1998, as follows:-
"In the circumstances, I, therefore, recommend that
Delta Security Limited should now pay a once-off
lump sum, of £400 to (the worker) in full and final
resolution of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
Both parties appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 26th of November, 1998.
3. 1. The worker was shocked and surprised at the fact of being dismissed, as well as the discourteous and un-businesslike manner in which the dismissal was handled.
2. The worker is seeking compensation of four weeks' pay, i.e. £837. The Company had no valid grounds for dismissing the worker. The worker is capable, competent and qualified for the job of security guard. At all times he was punctual, efficient and reliable.
3. The worker accepted full responsibility for an incident which occurred in March, 1998, while he was off duty. He apologised to the Company and believed that the matter was closed. He was dismissed one month later without warning.
4. 1. As the worker was employed by the Company for only eight months his departure was regarded as a termination of his employment while on probation.
2. During the course of his employment the Company received many complaints about the worker's performance and transferred him from one location to another.
3. The worker was given a severe warning and a final chance to prove himself following the incident in March, 1998. However, the Company received a report detailing further complaints on the 21st of April, 1998.
4. The decision to terminate the worker's employment was not taken lightly as the Company was extremely busy and was short-staffed. However, due to the problems experienced with the worker concerned, the Company concluded that he was unlikely to become a suitable security officer.
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Having considered the information before it, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeals.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th December, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.