INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
(REPRESENTED BY MORGAN MC MANUS SOLICITORS)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. Unfair Dismissal.
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 27th January, 2010, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th October, 2011.
3. 1. The Worker accepts that he acted inappropriately.
2. The Company failed to investigate this matter according to fair procedures.
3.The Company's decision to terminate the Worker's employment was not proportionate.
4. 1. The Worker failed to make a delivery to an important customer on time; he then forged a signature to pretend that he had made the delivery on time.
2. The Worker's actions almost lost the Company a very important and lucrative customer.
3.The Company terminated the Worker's employment for gross misconduct.
The spokesperson for the employer made a number of preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the complaint forming the subject matter of this referral. Suffice it to say that the Court finds no merit in these objections. This referral is made pursuant to s.20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 which requires the Court to investigate a dispute where the conditions specified in that subsection are fulfilled. The consent of the employer is not required by that statutory provision. Moreover, there is plainly a dispute between the parties concerning the appropriateness of the claimant's dismissal and that dispute is a trade dispute within the statutory meaning of that term.
With regard to the substance of the dispute the court is satisfied that the incident giving rise to his dismissal did not involve any personal gain for the claimant. The Court is further satisfied that the procedure adopted by the employer was deficient in a number of material respects. Firstly, in light of its earlier instruction no to contact colleagues in respect to the incident in question, the Claimant should have been informed in clearer terms of his right to be represented at the disciplinary hearing. Secondly, it appears that the employer gave scant consideration to the representations made by the claimant on his own behalf. Thirdly, the time allowed for the making of an appeal was unduly short and there seems to be no good reason for not considering the appeal when made.
Notwithstanding these deficiencies it is clear that the claimant was guilty of serious misconduct and this must be taken into account in considering any redress which the Court could recommend. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €2,500 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th November, 2011______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.