Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86869 Case Number: LCR11058 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DEPT OF DEFENCE - and - MR. A. KELLY |
Claim that the dismissal of a worker was unfair.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is of the view that the difficulties between the
parties arose from the complex stores recording arrangements and
the over anxiety of the worker regarding stock discrepancies.
These factors led to the exaggeration of the problem and personal
friction between individuals.
Overall the Court considers that fairness would be achieved by
payment of the worker to October, 24th - the date on which he
expected to finish.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86869 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11058
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11058
Parties: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Claim that the dismissal of a worker was unfair.
Background:
2. The worker was employed on a temporary basis by the Department
as a storeman at Kilbride Camp from 10th June, 1986 until his
dismissal on 7th October, 1986. He had previously been employed
by the Department from September, 1985 to December, 1985.
3. In June, 1986 the worker carried out a stockcheck of the
stores. As a result of his check he concluded that material had
been stolen from the stores between December, 1985 and June, 1986.
The total value of the material involved was #1109. The worker
contends that he reported the matter, however, his superior
officers state that they did not get any notification at that
stage. In August, 1986 the worker wrote to the Minister for
Defence about conditions of employment and mentioned the
discrepancy in stores. He also phoned the Department about a
weekend break-in at the Camp. The Department then started an
investigation into the alleged theft. That investigation is still
being carried out.
4. The worker was dismissed on 7th October, 1986. The other
workers who were given casual employment at the same time as the
worker were let go on 31st December, 1986. The worker stated that
he was told that his dismissal was due to his reporting missing
materials and because he had insulted an officer. The Department
states the reasons for the dismissal were incompetence, gross
misconduct, insubordination and refusal to carry out instructions
of the Barrack Foreman of Works. The Army refused to supply a
reference to the Worker. The Worker contends he lost
approximately #700 in earnings as a result of the dismissal.
5. The Worker considered the dismissal unfair and sought to refer
the matter to a Rights Commissioner but the Department would not
attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing. On 27th October, 1986 the
Worker referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and
recommendation. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 9th February,
1987.
Worker's arguments:
5. (i) When the Worker carried out the stock check in June,
1986 he discovered materials, to the value of #1109 had
been stolen from the stores some time between December,
1985 and June, 1986. The Worker reported the matter to
the Military Police, however, no action was taken.
(ii) The Worker was anxious about the matter. Therefore, in
August, 1986 he wrote to the Minister for Defence
concerning wages and conditions. He also mentioned the
fact that materials had been stolen. The Officer in
charge of the Camp asked the worker to withdraw the
letter and also it is alleged admitted that he had
taken some of the material.
(iii) The Worker has been wronged by the Army. Because of
the dismissal his honesty, integrity and character have
been called into question.
(iv) The dismissal was unfair and in breach of the dictates
of natural justice. The decision to dismiss the Worker
was taken a day before its notification to him. The
Worker was given no opportunity to defend himself.
(v) The reason given by the Department subsequently, for
the dismissal, i.e. that the worker had insulted a
superior officer, is serious. The real reason for the
dismissal was because the Worker reported the theft of
the materials.
(vi) On 7th October, 1986 the Worker was informed that his
services were no longer required and that his
employment was terminated. The Worker was then asked
to leave the Camp. The Worker stopped at the gate of
the Camp to say goodbye to colleagues and while he was
there he was ordered out of the Camp and told he was
now regarded as a trespasser. The summary nature of
the dismissal and the manner of the Worker's removal
from the Camp were without justification. The refusal
of the Army to supply a reference has aggravated the
damage suffered by the Worker. Any prospect of a
permanent position with the Army has been frustrated.
Department's arguments:
6. (a) The Worker's employment was terminated because of his
incompetence, misconduct, insubordination and refusal
to carry out the instruction of the Barrack Foreman of
Works. The Worker behaved in an insubordinate manner
to the Area Engineer Officer. His conduct had a very
disruptive effect on the other civilian staff employed
at the Camp.
(b) The Worker was informed at the start of his employment
that he was to take instructions in regard to work from
the chargehand, the Barrack Foreman of Works and the
Area Engineer Officer. This is the normal chain of
command in a Maintenance Company of the Corps of
Engineers. The Worker was also advised that any matter
concerning conditions etc. should be processed in the
same way.
(c) Normally the Worker would have been entitled to one
week's notice before termination of his employment.
However in the circumstances of this case his employing
officer was justified in terminating his employment
without notice. The Worker along with the other
workers, was also told in September that the employment
was likely to end on 3rd October.
(d) The Department has offered to pay the Worker a week's
pay in lieu of notice. This offer is without
prejudice to the Department's right to terminate the
Worker's employment without notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court is of the view that the difficulties between the
parties arose from the complex stores recording arrangements and
the over anxiety of the worker regarding stock discrepancies.
These factors led to the exaggeration of the problem and personal
friction between individuals.
Overall the Court considers that fairness would be achieved by
payment of the worker to October, 24th - the date on which he
expected to finish.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
_________________________
Chairman
31st March, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.