Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86600 Case Number: LCR10740 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES (IRE)LTD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the re-instatement of a dismissed worker.
Recommendation:
5. In the special circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the Company should offer to re-employ the claimant for a
probationary period of six months. The Court has noted that he
has agreed to visit the Company's doctor and to follow an
appropriate course of treatment.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86600 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10740
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10740
Parties: BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) LTD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the re-instatement of a dismissed worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was first employed by the Company in
1979. As with all employees he experienced a comprehensive
induction programme, an element of which was a detailed statement
on the Company's requirements for regular attendance at work.
Details of the Company's requirements regarding contact with the
Plant in the event of inability to attend for work are also
carefully detailed at induction. In January, February, July,
1980, December, 1982, January and April, 1983 the worker was
disciplined for unexcused absences. Between November, 1985 and
end of March, 1986 the worker failed to turn up for work on a
number of occasions. On 1st April, 1986, a formal review of the
worker's attendance record took place between himself, his Union
representatives and management. At the review, the worker gave an
undertaking to improve his attendance record, and indicated his
possible need for special leave of absence due to anticipated
domestic difficulties. The Company subsequently wrote to the
worker outlining the details of the meeting and warning him that
any future breach of Plant requirements or unexcused absences
could lead to suspension or the termination of his employment.
Following further absences and
meetings the worker was put on suspension without pay on 11th
June, 1986. On 17th June, 1986 when the worker was due to resume
duty, he informed the management that he could not face coming to
work with a new shift. He was informed that this was not a good
enough reason for not resuming duty, and was placed on further
suspension. On 19th June, 1986 a meeting took place between the
worker, his Union representative and management. Following the
meeting, the worker's employment was terminated. A conciliation
conference took place on 16th July, 1986. As the matter could not
be resolved it was agreed to refer the case to the Labour Court
for investigation and a recommendation. A Labour Court hearing
took place at Tralee on 17th September, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker's dismissal is directly related to his
attendance record. His absences were due to serious
domestic difficulties, and he was not able to cope
with the pressure of these and his obligations in
maintaining his employment. He convinced himself that
he was coping with his problems and was sincere when
he told the Company that his domestic situation was
improving and that his attendance at work would
correspondingly improve.
(ii) The worker, when he was advised to take 6 months leave
of absence thought it unnecessary, believing that
somehow he could cope. This was not the case,
unfortunately as things went wrong.
(iii) The act of dismissal came as a major shock to him.
Over the past 3 months he has made a real effort to
sort out his domestic situation and has achieved quite
a lot, re-establishing for the first time in years
credibility with family and friends (details of his
problems and how he has coped with them including
correspondence from third parties, were supplied to
the Court).
(iv) He is determined that if re-instated he will be able
to fulfil his obligations to the Company and that this
act of confidence will not be misplaced.
Company's arguments:
4. As a result of the investigation, the Company was satisfied
that the worker:-
(a) was aware of the Company's requirements as to regular
attendance at work,
(b) was aware of the significance of each stage of the
Disciplinary Procedure,
(c) was intellectually capable of understanding the
significance of the suspension of June, 11th,
(d) was intellectually capable of understanding and
accepting that the suspension of 11th June,
constituted a final opportunity to remain in the
Company's employment,
(e) had clearly demonstrated his inability to fulfil the
undertakings he had given,
(f) The Company was satisfied that it had taken all
reasonable steps to bring home to the worker the
seriousness of his situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the special circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the Company should offer to re-employ the claimant for a
probationary period of six months. The Court has noted that he
has agreed to visit the Company's doctor and to follow an
appropriate course of treatment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____27th____October, 1986. __________________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman