Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87909 Case Number: LCR11613 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
The alleged unfair dismissal of one employee (a foreman).
Recommendation:
9. The Court considers that the incident amounted to gross
misconduct and that the Company has good grounds for believing
that the foreman is not telling the truth about his involvement in
the matter. In these circumstances and having regard to his
position of responsibility, the Court does not recommend his
reinstatement.
It is the Court's view, however, that having regard to all the
circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate for the
Company to offer its redundancy terms.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87909 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11613
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. The alleged unfair dismissal of one employee (a foreman).
BACKGROUND:
2. The employee concerned was employed as a foreman at the
Company's Marino Point plant. He has been dismissed because of
his alleged involvement in a practical joke on Monday 14th
September, 1987. On that date, a general operative, normally
supervised by this foreman, entered the well of a lifting shaft,
wrapped the hoist chain around his body and lifted himself about
five feet into the air, holding the hoist controls in his hand.
The effect of this was that anyone passing would see a pair of
legs dangling and believe that a suicide by hanging had occurred.
The incident took place at the exact time when a second foreman,
coming on duty, would pass and observe the scene. The foreman now
dismissed rang security personnel at the gate to ascertain the
exact time when the other foreman was entering the premises. When
the foreman coming on duty observed the scene he ran to the locker
room seeking help. On return to the hoist, the operator had
lowered himself and he then apologised to the foreman. He later
went into the foreman's office to again apologise.
3. The incident was not reported to management. On 17th
September the plant manager became aware that an incident had
occurred and, on 21st September, the foreman who was the victim of
the joke was interviewed by the plant manager. On 30th September
there was a meeting between the other foreman (now dismissed) and
the plant manager. There is a conflict of evidence as to what was
said at this meeting. This foreman was absent from work on sick
leave for a period following this meeting.
4. The operator who had played the practical joke was dismissed
on 13th October. His case was processed through conciliation and
the Labour Court and Labour Court Recommendation No. 11517 of 9th
November recommended that he be reinstated without compensation
for loss of earnings with effect from 16th November provided he
and the Union accept that there was a case of gross misconduct.
5. On 13th October management sought a meeting with the foreman
who was on sick leave to discuss the incident. He replied in
writing that he was unable to attend due to his ill health. On
14th October management wrote to him advising him that he was
relieved of his duties until such time as his involvement in the
incident was investigated. This was on the basis of his
conversation with the plant manager. A meeting was arranged
between management and the foreman with his Union representatives
for 11th November. The foreman was suspended with pay in
accordance with the Disciplinary Procedure. A further meeting was
then arranged between management and the foreman's Union official.
The foreman was subsequently dismissed on 20th November, 1987.
6. The matter of his dismissal was referred, on 20th November,
1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference held on 25th November, failed to resolve
the matter and it was referred to a full hearing of the Labour
Court. The hearing took place on 7th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The dismissed employee has worked in industry for 29
years and has an impeccable record. During his period of
employment with the Company he has been commended on a yearly
basis. The Company operates an annual assessment programme
and he has regularly been amongst the top achievers. In
August of this year he was approached and asked if he would
act as plant manager for a period in the event that the plant
manager would be absent.
2. The Company's policy is to reduce numbers at Marino
Point. To this end a voluntary redundancy programme was
brought in some years ago. However, to date, this has not
brought the numbers down to the level required by the Company.
The Union believes that the Company is particularly anxious to
reduce the numbers of foremen employed.
3. The dismissed employee had no knowledge of the fact that
a practical joke was to be played on 14th September. He
asked security personnel at the gate to let him know when the
second foreman was entering the plant because he had been
asked to do so by the operator who played the joke. He made
this call innocently with no knowledge of what was to happen.
4. The Company's investigation was defective for three
reasons:-
(a) It was carried out over a long period of time i.e.
from 14th September to 20th November, 1987. If, as
alleged, there was gross misconduct on 14th
September it should have been dealt with
immediately.
(b) Different management personnel interviewed the
workers concerned. If gross misconduct was
suspected the same personnel should have conducted
all interviews.
(c) Three employees who were on the shift on the 14th
September were not interviewed despite the fact
that management had said that all who were present
would be interviewed.
7. 5. In the course of the conversation which took place
betweeen the foreman and the plant manager on 30th September,
the foreman said that he was worried the rumour going around
that he was involved in the incident (The Union supplied the
Court with the worker's version of the details of the
conversation). He explained the position regarding his
innocent involvement in so far as he made a phone call to the
gate.
6. The alleged involvement of the foreman in the incident
has not been substantiated and the Union contends that he has
been unfairly dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The employee has been dismissed for gross misconduct
arising from his involvement in the incident of 14th
September. The Company does not accept his denial of
involvement.
2. In the course of the conversation which took place
between the foreman and the plant manager on 30th September,
the foreman confessed his involvement in the incident. (The
Company provided the Court with the plant manager's version of
the conversation). Prior to this incident these two
individuals had been close personal friends. There is no
reason why the Plant Manager would fabricate such a
confession.
3. The Company does not believe that the phone call made to
the gate by the foreman was made without any knowledge of the
incident which was about to occur. The foreman refused to
interview the operator who was involved in the incident as
instructed on 29th September. Management believe this was
because he himself was involved in planning the incident.
4. There is an obligation on the Company to provide a safe
system of working. By his involvement in this affair this
employee condoned a most serious breach of safety. This
blatant disregard for safety from the person who had the
responsibility and authority to prevent the incident has
irreparably damaged his standing as a member of the management
team. To retain him as an employee could damage the
confidence of the workforce in supervisors whose duty it is to
encourage safety awareness and lead by example. An impossible
situation also now exists between this employee and the plant
manager.
5. The Company has lost all trust and confidence in this
employee. He has undermined his credibility and has shown
himself to be unsuitable for any position of responsibility
and authority. The Company cannot consider reinstating him.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court considers that the incident amounted to gross
misconduct and that the Company has good grounds for believing
that the foreman is not telling the truth about his involvement in
the matter. In these circumstances and having regard to his
position of responsibility, the Court does not recommend his
reinstatement.
It is the Court's view, however, that having regard to all the
circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate for the
Company to offer its redundancy terms.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
23rd December, 1987 ----------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman