INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TIBBETT & BRITTEN GROUP (IRELAND) LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 616/98CW.
2. The worker concerned was employed as a driver by the Company from the 30th of May, 1998. He claims he was unfairly dismissed on the 31st of July, 1998. The Company states that his dismissal was justified due to this non-compliance with Company procedures. The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 7th of October, 1998, as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts that the dismissal
was not unfair."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.)
The worker 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 16th of December, 1998. A second hearing took place on the 28th of January, 1999 to hear additional evidence.
3. 1. It was not always possible to clock in as there was no access to the clock early in the morning.
2. The worker claims he was unfairly dismissed as he spoke out regarding unsafe trucks in the Company and how the Company was generally being run.
4. 1. When the worker was taken on he was made aware of Company procedures and advised that he should comply with them.
2. It was possible to clock in at any time as there is a security man present 24 hours per day.
3. Management spoke to the worker several times regarding his conduct and the seriousness of his failure to comply with Company procedures. The Company feels that the dismissal was justified.
Based on the evidence presented, the Court is satisfied that the actual dismissal took place on the 31st of July, although originally it was intended by the Company to dismiss on the 17th of July.
The claimant's action in not completing the paper work, and not clocking in despite being made aware of the seriousness of his actions, left him open to dismissal.
The employee claims that he was victimised because of criticism of the Company but this was not substantiated.
The Court, having considered the information supplied, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th February, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.