INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
ST ANTHONY'S PARISH
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The case concerns a dispute between the worker and her former employer regarding alleged unfair dismissal. The worker had been employed by St. Anthony's Parish Development Committee, Clontarf, as part of a Community Employment Scheme (CES) from June 2005 until her employment was terminated in December 2005.
The Union, (on behalf of the worker) is claiming that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It is the Union's position that the reasons outlined for dismissing the worker had previously been dealt with and the relevant issues resolved. It is also claimed that the worker was not afforded natural justice or fair procedure in the investigation into the alleged incidents that resulted in her dismissal.
Management's position is that there were several incidents which constituted misconduct despite several warnings and that the worker was justifiably dismissed on that basis. Management also claim to have followed the correct procedures with regard to the dismissal
On the 11th April, 2006, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st November, 2006.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. The issues that were raised as reasons for the dismissal had been previously dealt with. One incident was only raised after the investigation had taken place, which did not allow the worker an opportunity to respond.
2. The worker was denied natural justice, in that no opportunity to respond to certain allegations was given nor did Management follow fair procedures in its investigation.
4. 1. Management followed correct procedures at all times. The worker was notified of the allegation made against her and was given an opportunity to respond at the disciplinary meeting.
2. Having investigated the complaints thoroughly and in accordance with fair procedure management concluded that the worker was guilty of misconduct, and terminated her employment in December 2005 as a result.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures carried out by the employer fell short of the recommended procedures outlined in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000. In particular the Court is satisfied that two issues which were considered as serious issues by the employer, were not properly investigated and the claimant was not afforded an appropriate opportunity to respond to one of those issues.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers it appropriate that the claimant should be compensated with a lump sum payment of €1000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.