Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87700 Case Number: LCR11484 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU |
A dispute concerning the Company's decision to terminate a workers' employment.
Recommendation:
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87700 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11484
CC871068
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11484
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. A dispute concerning the Company's decision to terminate a
workers' employment.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was offered a seasonal appointment from
6th August, 1978 to 30th September, 1978 and again from 1st April,
1979 to 30th November, 1979. As there were vacancies in the
catering department at the end of the 1979 season the worker was
kept on. In August, 1981 the worker was established from 1st
June, 1981 subject to one year's probation. The delay in his
appointment arose because of his late attendance and absence
record. His period of probation was extended to December, 1982
because of his poor attendance and absence record. On a number of
occasions subsequent to this management wrote to the worker
concerning his sick leave record (details supplied to the Court)
culminating in a disciplinary hearing on 5th March, 1987, at which
the worker was dismissed from 3rd April, 1987. He was given leave
to appeal this decision. The worker's appeal was heard on 18th
March, 1987. His appeal was unsuccessful and he was dismissed
with effect from 3rd April, 1987. The Union wished to refer the
matter to a Rights Commissioner but the Company refused an
invitation to attend an investigation. The matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 8th July, 1987. A
conciliation conference was held on 14th September, 1987 a date
suitable to both parties. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
15th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The penalty imposed by the Company was extreme, and
more befitting to a person who was more seriously in
breach of discipline. This is not intended to say or
suggest that the worker's attendance record did not
require attention, nor is it intended to suggest that
discipline was not justified. At all stages of the
procedure, it is accepted that the worker's attendance
record was bad, however, dismissal, should be resorted
to only where other measures of discipline had failed,
to achieve their basic objective (i.e. to help workers
improve their performance when necessary).
(b) The Company had other measures open to it under the
disciplinary code (details supplied to the Court) and
the measures taken by the Company had no effect until
the worker's dismissal. The Union at various stages
through the appeals procedure put forward a reasonable
proposal which in the Union's view would have proven
conclusively that the Company made a right decision in
the first place in appointing the worker to the regular
staff. The Unions proposal is:
"That the worker be de facto dismissed for say a
number of days (to maintain the Company's principled
position), and would afterwards be brought back on a
very special probationary basis for this season,
during which his work performance etc would be
carefully monitored.
If, however, at the end of the season there is a
significant improvement in all of the areas which
gave rise to his dismissal in the first place, the
Company would consider him for retention in the
employment".
(c) The worker has since his dismissal failed to obtain
alternative employment elsewhere, he is a married man
with three children, has now experienced what it is
like to be without work. His wife is unable to work
due to a medical condition of pernicious anaemia. The
terms of the Union's proposal to the Company are all
the more meaningful now than ever before, and we ask
the Court to so decide.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) Aer Lingus as a Company has always operated in a humane
way to all its employees and this is borne out by our
treatment of the worker (details supplied to the
Court). He was given every opportunity to reform his
habits but did not avail of any of them.
(ii) The Company has an Employee Assistance Department.
This Department operates on the well accepted
principles of self help and gives encouragement to
anybody using the facility to try and help themselves
out of their difficulties. The worker did not do this
and the Company found it had an employee unable to
rehabilitate himself and who did not come to work on
any kind of a regular basis.
(iii) The worker's performance, lack of punctuality and
non-attendance was such that the Company had no option
but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATON:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points of
appeal made by the Union having regard to the steps taken by the
Company prior to dismissing the worker here concerned. The Court
is satisfied that the Company acted in a proper manner and
accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___29th__October,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / J. C. Deputy Chairman