Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86592 Case Number: LCR10984 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J. CAVANAGH & SONS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes with regret that the Company is in breach of
the procedural agreement in not attending the Court hearing on
this case. On the evidence available to it, the Court is
satisifed that the Worker's conduct did not warrant dismissal.
The Court recommends that in compensation for the unfairness
suffered by the Worker, but recognising the fact that he was
technically on probation, he should be paid #100.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86592 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10984
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10984
Parties: J CAVANAGH & SONS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
Background:
2. The Worker was dismissed by the Company towards the end of
1985 for non-conformance with Company rules. Following Union
representations the worker was re-engaged under the terms of an
accomodation reached on 24th February, 1986 as follows:-
1. The Union agrees that the Worker was in breach of
Procedural Agreement between the I.T.G.W.U. and the
Company and that this breach warranted dismissal under
said Agreement.
2. Re-employment means the Worker will commence employment
under a new contract of employment and it is clearly
understood by the Worker and the I.T.G.W.U. that this
means non continuation of old service period for
redundancy payment etc.
3. I.T.G.W.U. undertake to write to each of its Cavanagh
Members and instruct all Employees to abide by Clause
11 (grievances and disputes) in the event of such
instances arising.
4. A copy of this letter from the I.T.G.W.U. to be sent to
each Cavanagh Member.
5. Details at 2 above will be reviewed and considered six
months from date of this letter with a view to full
re-instatement.
Subsequent to his re-engagement the Worker was summarily dismissed
on the grounds that his actions constituted "an abuse of Company
property". The Worker considered his dismissal unfair. The Union
sought to refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner but the
Company would not attend.
3. On 26th June, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 16th July, 1986 but no agreement was reached. A Labour Court
hearing was arranged for 19th August, 1986 but on 1st August the
Company informed the Court that it would not attend the Labour
Court hearing.
4. On 20th November, 1986 the Union referred the matter to the
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 16th December, 1986 in Portlaoise. The Company did not attend
the Court hearing but did set out its case in a letter to the
Court on 9th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company dismissed the Worker for driving a
fork-lift with paint gloves on. However, it is the
universal practice at the plant to operate machinery
with gloves on. While the Company dismissed the worker
because it considered his actions constituted an abuse
of company property it permits untrained personnel to
operate the fork-lift.
(ii) The Worker does not seek re-employment with the
Company. However, the reasons given for his dismissal
will have untoward repercussions for both his character
and future employment opportunities. The Worker's
dismissal was excessive and he should now receive some
form of compensation.
(iii) The Company is in breach of clause 11(2) of the
Company/Union Agreement as it refused to refer the
matter to a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Worker was dismissed in February 1986 for breach of
the Company/Union Procedural Agreement. He was
re-instated after an agreement was concluded in which
the Union accepted that the Worker's dismissal was
warranted. In May, 1986 the Worker was dismissed for
abusing Company property. The Company was justified in
dismissing the worker.
(b) The worker operated machinery with paint gloves on and
deposited paint on the Machines' controls. The Company
warned him several times about his actions. The Worker
was then dismissed under Clause 15(m), which covered
misuse of Company equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes with regret that the Company is in breach of
the procedural agreement in not attending the Court hearing on
this case. On the evidence available to it, the Court is
satisifed that the Worker's conduct did not warrant dismissal.
The Court recommends that in compensation for the unfairness
suffered by the Worker, but recognising the fact that he was
technically on probation, he should be paid #100.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
11th February, 1987 ---------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman