FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOYROSS COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE CENTRE LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR21823/04/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a part-time security officer for Moyross Community Enterprise Centre as part of a Community Employment Scheme in March, 2004. In June 2004 the worker alleged that he left the site early as a result of a phone call advising him that one of his children was ill. He claims that he advised other colleagues on duty that he would have to leave early. The worker claims that he forgot to clock out but did return later that evening to clock his card. Management became aware of his absence and he was called to a meeting the next morning where he was dismissed. The worker was not afforded any representation at this meeting. Following representations from SIPTU a meeting was arranged between the parties. The Board of Management did meet to discuss the matter but the worker's dismissal stood. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 19th December, 2005, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
“I therefore recommend that Moyross Community Enterprise Centre Ltd should accept that their dismissal of the Claimant was unfair and that the company now pay the Claimant the sum of €318.40 in compensation for this dismissal”.
On the 29th January, 2006 the Union on behalf of the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 seeking to vary the Rights Commissioner recommendation by awarding the worker a much more substantiated level of compensation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union do accept that the workers actions were inappropriate, but do not accept that his dismissal was justified. The ethos of the Community Employment Schemes is to create an environment whereby the long term unemployed undergo a period of both training and re-adjustment.
2. There was a clear lack of fair procedures in the manner in which the worker's dismissal was handled. The worker's right to representation and appeal were clearly absent during the dismissal process.
3. The worker claims that he has made a number of applications to other C.E. and Job Initiative schemes but to date has been unsuccessful and he is of the view that this lack of success stems from his dismissal.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management contends that the worker's Supervisor spoke to him on a number of occasions for failing to adhere to his rostered hours.
2. The worker was called to a meeting on the 20th May, 2004 with the Chairman of the Board of Management. After hearing the worker's explanation it was agreed that the matter warranted instant dismissal. Following representation from the Union it was agreed that a further meeting would take place, the worker was to remain suspended from duty.
3. A sub group of the Board met on the 23rd June, 2004 and upheld the decision of the Manager that the dismissal stood.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the worker’s appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court concurs with findings of the Rights Commissioner that the worker contributed substantially to his own dismissal. However, the Court also agrees with its finding that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were inappropriate and were not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000. In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends a variation to the compensation decided upon by the Rights Commissioner and recommends that a total award of four weeks pay should be paid in full and final settlement of his claim.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th November, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.