INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
STERILE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR 6452/01/FL.
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a Driver from 4th, December, 2000 until the 10th August , 2001.On 17th, April, 2001 the worker received a written warning. On the 6th , June, 2001 and 25th, June 2001 the worker attended disciplinary hearings accompanied by the Shop Stewart. On 3rd, August, 2001 the Company decided to dismiss the worker. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner recommendation is as follows:-
" The claim of unfair dismissal succeeds. I recommend that the employer pay the claimant €8,500 compensation"
On the 23rd of April, 2002, the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court, under Section 13 (9) of th Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint on the 3rd July 2002.
3. 1. The worker was guilty of numerous transgressionsagainst Company procedure.
2. The worker receivedthe Company Disciplinary Procedure in his contract of employment . He was amply aware through this and through the warnings he received, of the implications for his continuing in employment with the Company, should such behaviour continue.
3. The worker's average weekly wage for the 5 highest weeks preceding the workers dismissal was €473.
4. 1. The Union contends that the worker was dismissed due to his Trade Union activities.
2. The worker was not given due process under the Company's own disciplinary procedure.
3. The worker was not given the required notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.
4. The worker has suffered financial hardship due to his dismissal.
The Court has given consideration to both the written and oral submissions of both parties. During the course of his probationary period the worker was issued with a formal written warning about his conduct. While no further formal warnings were given to him, the Company contend that a number of meetings were held about his unsatisfactory conduct.
Having examined the procedures used in the termination of his employment, the Court is not satisfied that the employer formally complied with the requirements set down in their own procedures. Nonetheless, the Court is satisfied that he contributed to his own
dismissal and in all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that he should be paid an award of €2,500 in full and final settlement of this case.
Accordingly, the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is amended.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th July, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.