Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86786 Case Number: LCR11111 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HEADWAY SECURITY LTD - and - ITGWU |
Union claim for the reinstatement of a dismissed worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the worker was not unfairly
dismissed and does not therefore recommends reinstatement or
compensation. The Court does recommend that he be paid two weeks'
wages in lieu of notice.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86786 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11111
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11111
Parties: HEADWAY SECURITY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Union claim for the reinstatement of a dismissed worker.
Background:
2. The Company is a recently formed one, operating in the
security industry and provides a static guarding service. The
worker concerned was employed as a static guard from the 1st June,
1985, to the 24th May, 1986, when he was summarily dismissed. The
Company claims that during the course of his employment, the
worker had acted in an aggressive manner towards Management on a
number of occasions and that complaints from clients concerning
his behaviour were also made. These claims were refuted by the
Union. Towards the end of May, 1986, the Company allege that it
was informed that the worker was working in a shop while out of
work on certified sick leave. On Saturday, 24th May, the owner of
the Company went to the shop in question where he found the
worker and summarily dismissed him on the grounds of gross
misconduct. At a meeting on the 8th August, 1986, the Union
disputed the dismissal and sought the worker's reinstatement. The
Company refused to do this and also advised the Union that it was
not willing to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing into the
dispute. The Union subsequently referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
on the 10th October, 1986 agreeing to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 8th December,
1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker categorically denies that he was working in
the shop as is alleged by Management. It was normal
for him to drive his wife to his father's shop at
lunch-time on Friday and Saturday so that she could
look after the shop while his father went to lunch.
The owner of the Company is well aware of this as he
himself visited the shop every Friday in order to give
the worker his wages.
(b) It was totally unfair for the owner of the Company to
walk into the shop and simply inform the worker that in
his opinion he was fit to work and to therefore
summarily dismiss him. Furthermore, it is the Union's
view that the owner deliberately availed of the
circumstances to dismiss the worker because he had been
trying to ensure that the proper pay and conditions
pertained within the Company.
(c) The worker's record was exemplary. He had never been
out absent, never been late for duty, never had any
complaint made against him by customers and was more
than co-operative in agreeing to do extra shifts with
little or no notice. On the 21st March, 1986, he
advised the Company that he had joined the Union and on
the 4th April, the Union contacted Management
requesting a meeting to discuss pay and conditions. On
that date the worker was informed that his hours were
to be reduced to 36 per week.
(d) The Union requests the Court to accept that the
worker was not guilty of gross misconduct and that the
action of the Company in summarily dismissing him was
unfair.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The worker's action in working in his father's shop at
a time when he was absent from work through illness
constituted gross misconduct, meriting summary
dismissal.
(ii) He had received a number of warnings from Management in
relation to his work performance and despite these
warnings, failed to meet the Company's standards.
Consequently, his shortcomings as a security guard and
his attitude to Management made him totally unsuited to
the position which he held in the Company.
(iii) The Company believes that the worker was treated in a
fair and reasonable manner and respectfully requests
that the Court recommends that he accepts the decision
to terminate his employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the worker was not unfairly
dismissed and does not therefore recommends reinstatement or
compensation. The Court does recommend that he be paid two weeks'
wages in lieu of notice.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
12th February, 1987
D.H./J.C.