FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EMERALD GAS LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was founded in 2000 to provide the domestic and commercial market in Kildare and surrounding counties with gas and oil central heating installations and servicing of same and to do general plumbing work. It also applied successfully for inclusion on the panel of "Authorised Contractor" to Bord Gais Energy Supply.
The Worker concerned was employed as an emergency response fitter from the 1st December 2006 to the time of his dismissal on the 6th September 2007, a period of nine months.
The Company claimed that the Worker was absent from work on a number of occasions and did not notify the Company in accordance with procedures. There were also alleged incidents in relation to time sheets and job cards which the Company identified as examples of gross misconduct.
Following a number of contacts verbally and in writing between the Worker and the Company, a disciplinary meeting was held with the Worker and his Union representative. After an adjournment the Worker had nothing further to add and the meeting was concluded. The Company decided to dismiss the Worker.
The Worker through his Union representative sought to have his complaint heard by a Rights Commissioner but the Company refused to attend.
The Worker claims that he was summarily dismissed without fair procedures and natural justice and that unfounded allegations were made against him. He is seeking compensation. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 25th February, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Union maintains that this was never proven and that the Worker was denied fair procedures and natural justice.
2. There was no evidence produced by the Company to verify its allegations.
3. The right to appeal the dismissal was denied to the Worker as the decision to dismiss was taken by the Directors in the Company and there was no independent person to whom an appeal could be made.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that it applied fair procedures and natural justice to the Worker in the process that led up to and resulted in his dismissal.
2. The Company alleges that the Worker received both verbal and written warnings about his work performance before the decision to call him to a disciplinary meeting, at which he was accompanied by his Union Shop Steward.
3. The Company maintains that it carried out a full investigation which included re-checking its files at the request of the Worker but could not find evidence to support the Worker's statements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that there were certain procedural defects in the process by which the complaints against the Claimant were investigated. The Court is also of the view that the issue relating to the alleged absences of the Claimant could have been addressed earlier by way of formal warnings.
The Court is equally satisfied that the Claimant was not without fault in what occurred. In particular, the situation which developed could have been avoided if the Claimant had been prepared to give reasonable assurances concerning his willingness to adhere strictly to Company policy in relation to absences.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied that the Claimant's dismissal was procedurally unfair. However, the Claimant contributed to an appreciable degree to what occurred.
The Court recommends that the dispute be resolved by the payment to the Claimant of compensation in the amount of €3,000 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from his dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th May, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.