INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
GMC SIERRA GMC
- AND -
ROSE MC CANN
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell
1. Appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No ADJ-00000125.
2. This case concerns a claim for unfair dismissal. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and decision. On 22 February 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Decision:-
As part of my investigation under the Acts, i am obliged to hold a hearing.
All reasonable efforts were made to inform the complainant of the hearing. I find that the complainants' failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances outlined above.
As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the complaint, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.
I dismiss her claims.
The Union on behalf of the claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on 16 March 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A labour Court hearing took place on 4 July 2016.
3. 1.There was never any question at any time about the claimant's work rate or her ability in the months that she was employed by GMC Sierra.
2.The only time that the issue of the claimant using the company's facilities to look for other employment was raised with her was in an email sent by her line manager on 17 April 2015. This email did not say anything regarding a formal warning or indeed a final written warning. At no time did the claimant receive a verbal warning and the only communication on this issue was the email that she received on 17 April 2015.
3.While the claimant does not deny that she had on occasion used the Company IT facilities to look out for other jobs the way the Company dealt with the matter and the severity of the punishment far outweighed any wrongdoing of which she was accused.
4. 1.The claimant acknowledged breaching Company policy and admitted to using the company's IT facilities to seek employment elsewhere during working hours despite previously promising not to do so.
2.As a result, she was dismissed given that there was a complete breakdown in the necessary trust between the company and her.
3.The claimant should have exhausted the company's internal procedures and appealed the decision to dismiss her prior to referring the matter to the Labour Court.
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties in this dispute. The Court finds that the procedures adopted by the Company in this case fell short of the standard set out in S.I. 146/2000 which rendered the dismissal unfair.
Taking all of the circumstances of this case into account the Court finds that the Company should compensate the Complainant in the sum of €1,000 for this unfair dismissal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6 July 2016______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.