Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87216 Case Number: LCR11156 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CENTRAL BANK, SANDYFORD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the evidence
presented to it and is satisfied that the Company did not act
unreasonably. The Court accordingly does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim for re-instatement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87216 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11156
CC872 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11156
Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was suspended by the Bank on 16th
October, 1986 pending an investigation by the Bank into an
allegation that she interfered with another worker's locker. The
other worker had returned to the locker room at 10.45 a.m. She
states that she went there to obtain her keys as she had, in her
haste that morning, left them in her locker. On entering the room
she saw the worker concerned with the worker's handbag in her hand
and going through the locker. She reported the incident to her
supervisor. The worker concerned was interviewed by Management
later on that day. She denied the allegation and stated that she
was looking for hairspray. As there was a conflict of evidence
Management decided to suspend the worker with pay pending an
investigation into the alleged incident. Following an
investigation at which all the workers involved were interviewed
the worker concerned was dismissed on 7th November, 1986. The
Union met with Management on 12th December, 1986, seeking the
re-instatement of the worker concerned. As no resolution was
possible the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 23rd December, 1986. A conciliation
conference was held on 17th February, 1987. As no agreement was
possible it was agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 24th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker was dismissed without the Bank informing the
Union of the situation. She attended at meetings with
Management without recourse to a representative being
present.
(b) The worker categorically denies the allegation that she
was attempting to steal the handbag. There is no
evidence to support the allegation. It is one workers
word against another.
(c) The Union consider that there is a reasonable doubt
because of the lack of evidence in this case and the
benefit of this doubt should be given to the worker.
Accordingly, she should be re-instated to her former
position within the Bank.
Bank's arguments:
4. (i) Following the allegation made the matter was
investigated fully by Management (details supplied to
the Court). Management was aware of the provisions of
the Unfair Dismissals, Act, 1977 and the Industrial
Relations Acts, for redress not to mention a civil
action and were determined to investigate the matter
fully.
(ii) Given that the Bank is a high security area where the
integrity of all the workers must be above suspicion
Management reached the conclusion on analysing the
result of the investigation that they had no option but
to dismiss the worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the evidence
presented to it and is satisfied that the Company did not act
unreasonably. The Court accordingly does not recommend concession
of the Union's claim for re-instatement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____4th__May,__1987. __________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman