INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
(REPRESENTED BY SUPERVALUE HEAD OFFICE)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR7714/02/GF.
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company on the 10th September, 2001 as a trainee Manager. He was on six months probation and it was during this probationary period that it was claimed that three complaints from members of staff were received by the Company.
The Claimant was dismissed from his position on the 15th January, 2002.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On the 2nd of September, 2002 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
" I am satisfied that the allegations which led to the claimants dismissal were not put in an appropriate manner aside from the uncorroborated allegations -namely the time factor - to listen to the allegations and prepare a proper defence (i.e.) Lawyer, Witness were inadequate. I decide the dismissal was procedurally flawed and was therefore unfair. I recommend the claimant be paid the sum of €2000 compensation in full and final settlement of this claim."
The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 26th of November, 2002 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of February, 2003.
3. 1. The Company disagrees with the Rights Commissioner's recommendation that the allegations were not put to the Claimant in an appropriate manner aside from uncorroborated evidence.
2. One of the alleged injured parties was present at the Rights Commissioner's hearing and her allegation was not investigated at the hearing.
3. On the 17th of December, 2001 the Claimant received a formal written warning that any recurrence of similar allegations would lead to dismissal. He was advised that physical contact with staff was unacceptable.
4. At the disciplinary meeting on the 15th of January, 2002 the Claimant was advised of his right to representation which he choose not to avail of.
5. The Claimant availed of the Companies grievance and disciplinary procedure and as a result the Company view the dismissal as reasonable and fair.
4. 1. He believes the manner in which he was dismissed amounted to constructive dismissal as he was subjected to abuse from the Manager and Assistant Manager.
2. He claims that the allegations made against him are totally untrue, unfounded and unproven as his request for video evidence was rejected by the Company.
3. None of the alleged injured parties allegations were corroborated by any witnesses.
4. Proper procedures were not followed in the manner of the dismissal.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, supports the findings of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th March, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Carmel McManus, Court Secretary.