Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87708 Case Number: LCR11486 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MARKETING ARTS - and - ITGWU |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the employers were within their
rights in dispensing with the claimant's services in the
circumstances of the case. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87708 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11486
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11486
Parties: MARKETING ARTS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker concerning an alleged
unfair dismissal.
Background:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company, as
a van driver, on 16th February, 1987. His duties involved
bringing promotional stands and other equipment to various
locations throughout the country for promotional functions and to
assist in setting up and dismantling same. On 25th May, 1987, the
worker concerned and a colleague were in Nenagh, Co. Tipperary,
dismantling some equipment after a function, when a manager of the
Company arrived in a van to collect some material. The manager
directed the two workers to load his van. After an exchange of
words between the worker concerned and the manager, the two
workers loaded some of the heavy material and left the manager to
complete his load with some smaller items. The Company maintains
that when the manager requested the worker concerned to finish the
loading of his van and also not to throw aluminium display bars on
the ground, the worker concerned threatened him. This is denied
by the worker. On 29th May, 1987, the worker was advised that he
was being given a week's notice as a result of the incident in
Nenagh and for other things. On 18th September, 1987, the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969.
Prior to a Court hearing on 15th October, 1987, the Union agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union disputes the dismissal because the worker
concerned had been given no opportunity by the Company
to give his side of the story relating to the incident
in Nenagh. The Company has referred to the worker's
'general abusive and threatening behaviour' but has not
substantiated this claim.
(b) The Union contends that the worker was dismissed simply
because he spoke up to the manager concerning the
loading of his van. This, the Union believes, is not
sufficient grounds to justify dismissal.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company maintains that the worker concerned refused
to obey an instruction by a manager to load a van with
display equipment and on the same occasion used
threatening behaviour to the manager. The worker
concerned also disobeyed an instruction not to throw
expensive equipment on to a floor from a height.
(b) The Company also maintains that the worker has not
carried out orders to collect equipment when requested
and has broken Company rules by taking the Company van
home.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the employers were within their
rights in dispensing with the claimant's services in the
circumstances of the case. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman