FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : O'MEARA WASTE DISPOSAL TRADING AS MR BINMAN CLONMEL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Sacked for carrying out management instruction to mix waste.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates within the regulatory framework under the Waste management Acts and associated legislation, regulations and bye-laws, and under the terms of a waste collection permit issued by Kilkenny County Council. The Claimant was employed as a helper on a bin lorry with effect from 5th May 2008 and collected three different types of waste, general waste, dry recyclables and biodegradable waste. Under Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations waste should not be mixed however in an emergency situation an instruction to mix may be issued by Management. On the dates relating to this dispute Management vigorously deny ever issuing an instruction to mix the waste. The Claimant is adamant that the order was indeed given. The Claimant is not seeking his job back only compensation for being dismissed.
On the 3rd June 2009 the Union 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 3rd September, 2009.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 23rd December, 2008 and on 2nd January, 2009 Management gave instructions to the Claimant and both drivers to mix waste.
2. Both drivers and their helper honestly believed that authorisation to mix waste was given by Management on both dates.
3.It is not an uncommon practice to mix waste in an emergency such as in the event of a bin lorry breaking down.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management deny giving permission to mix waste or to split the run. A disciplinary hearing took place on 16th January 2009 following which the Claimant was dismissed.
2. Following the appeal hearing Management upheld the decision to dismiss on the grounds that he had failed to follow instructions and trespassed on customers property leading to the loss of that customer.
3.He was fairly dismissed under the terms of the Disciplinary procedures as set out in the Employee Handbook.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and the evidence tendered in this case, including the evidence of those directly involved in the incidents giving rise to the dispute.
The Court is satisfied that there is a credible basis upon which it could be concluded that a misunderstanding occurred as to how collections were to be organised on the days in question. In these circumstances the Court cannot accept that the dismissal of the Claimant was warranted or fair.
The Court notes that the Claimant is not seeking reinstatement in his former employment. In these circumstances the Court believes that the dispute should be resolved by the payment of compensation to the Claimant.
The Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €10,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th September, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.