Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87116 Case Number: LCR11188 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JAMES CONNOLLY MEMORIAL HOSP. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the re-instatement of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case and
taking into account all the circumstances is of the opinion that
the Board of Management should not have dismissed the claimant.
Accordingly the Court recommends that he be re-instated with full
pay, less any State benefits which have been paid for the period
since he was dismissed.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87116 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11188
CC861545 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11188
Parties: JAMES CONNOLLY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the re-instatement of a worker.
Background:
2. On 17th July, 1986 a cheque belonging to a hospital
radiographer was cashed in the Trustee Savings Bank (TSB) in
Blanchardstown. The theft of the cheque was reported to the
Hospitals salaries Department on the same day and a stop was
placed on the cheque. The T.S.B. subsequently informed the
hospital authorities that the cheque was cashed by the worker, a
porter at the Hospital. On 21st August, 1986 the worker was
suspended with pay. On 29th August, 1986 the Board of Management
of the Hospital decided to terminate the worker's employment with
effect from 2nd September, 1986. The Union claimed that the
worker should be re-instated and that the Hospital's action was
unjustified.
3. The Union sought to refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner
but the Hospital did not wish to do so. On 18th September, 1986
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 23rd October, 1986
but no agreement was reached. On 18th February, 1987 the matter
was referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 26th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Hospital acted improperly in dismissing the worker.
(ii) The decision to dismiss was based on a statement made
by a bank clerk. The union was denied the opportunity
to confront the person or persons making allegations
against the worker concerned.
(iii) It is conceivable that the bank clerk was confused as
it is alleged that the cheque was cashed on 17th July
which was a Thursday and banks are traditionally
extremely busy on Thursdays.
(iv) The worker was not convicted of any crime and the
decision to dismiss him deprived him of natural justice
which dictates that a person is innocent until proven
guilty.
(v) On the hospital's own admission the worker's record was
unblemished and in fact he had handed up a cheque which
he found in the precincts of the hospital.
(vii) The worker has been cleared of all charges made against
him. He is 59 years of age and would find it
impossible to get a job due to the high unemployment
figures.
(vii) The action of the hospital has caused incalculable
damage to the workers personal reputation and
immeasurable pain and anguish to his wife and family.
The dismissal is an abuse of the requirements of
natural justice and of established industrial relations
procedures.
Hospital's arguments:
5. (a) The Hospital Management's decision to dismiss the
worker was based on the conclusion of its own thorough
investigation of the incident (details supplied to the
Court). This investigation and conclusion was quite
independent of the Garda investigation or pending
criminal proceedings. It was as a result of its own
very thorough investigation that the Hospital decided
that the trust and confidence it must have in each of
its employees, had ceased to exist in the case of the
worker.
(b) Hospital Porters provide a messenger service and as
such have access to every department and ward unit
within the hospital. Valuable essential hospital
equipment and staff and patient property must never be
placed at risk. To re-instate in the Hospital's
employment a person who does not have the fullest
confidence and trust of Management would be a serious
dereliction of duty on the Hospital Management's part.
(c) On the very compelling evidence of the bank clerk
(statement supplied to the Court) the Hospital's
Secretary/Manager believed that the worker did cash the
cheque. He had no option but to recommend the worker
be dismissed unless he could provide a satisfactory
explanation for the incident.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case and
taking into account all the circumstances is of the opinion that
the Board of Management should not have dismissed the claimant.
Accordingly the Court recommends that he be re-instated with full
pay, less any State benefits which have been paid for the period
since he was dismissed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan.
18th May, 1987 -------------------
T. O'M/U.S. Chairman