Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87673 Case Number: LCR11434 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROOKS THOMAS LTD - and - MPGWU |
Dispute concerning the disciplinary action taken by the Company against a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company did not act
unreasonably in the circumstances of this case and that it has an
obligation to ensure that the movement of its goods is properly
controlled. Having heard the submissions the Court accepts that
some malpractice occurred. However the Court considers the
dismissal of the worker here involved is too serious a penalty and
accordingly recommends a period of suspension from 21st July, 1987
to 31st October, 1987 and a further 3 month probationary period to
terminate on 31st January, 1988 and on satisfactory completion of
this period the worker to be fully re-instated.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87673 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11434
CC871159 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11434
Parties: BROOKS THOMAS LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the disciplinary action taken by the
Company against a worker.
Background:
2. On Friday 10th July, 1987 the worker concerned who was
employed by the Company as a porter/docket man loaded two
rotary clothes lines onto a sub-contractor's lorry. The Company's
security officer stopped the truck at the exit of the Bluebell
premises and found that their was no documentation for the
clotheslines. The driver, the worker concerned and a
clerical/sales employee were questioned individually by
Management. The two direct employees were informed that pending
further investigation both were being suspended with pay. The
worker concerned refused to accept his suspension. The Gardai
were also informed of the incident. They called to the Company
premises interviewed the worker concerned and subsequently charged
him. An unofficial strike commenced on 14th July, 1987 and the
strike was ratified by the Union on 16th July, 1987. The Company
carried out its investigation into the matter and as a result the
worker concerned was dismissed from his employment on 21st July,
1987 for gross misconduct involving the attempted unauthorised
removal of Company property from the Company premises. The
conciliation service of the Labour Court became aware of the
strike and both parties were invited to attend a conciliation
conference. The conciliation conferences was held on 24th July,
1987 at which interim proposals were agreed to end the strike
pending further discussions on the case of the worker concerned.
A further conciliation conference was held on 1st September, 1987.
An agreement was reached to and the strike and the case of the
worker concerned was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 9th
September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned has been employed by the Company
for approximately 8 years. His particular position in
the Company involves him carrying out work under
instructions from direct supervisors and clerical/sales
employees. The worker put the clothes lines on the
lorry at the request of a clerical/sales employee. He
considered this part of his normal duties and he had no
involvement in the alleged theft. He so informed the
Company during the course of its investigation into the
matter.
(b) The Company is basing its case for dismissal mainly on
a statement made by the driver on the morning of the
incident and that the worker was operating out of his
normal work area. The driver stated that when the
worker was loading the lorry he said "one for you, one
for me." The driver retracted this statement that
afternoon. On the other issue, the worker was employed
in the heavy goods area, the clotheslines were taken
from the builders hardware area which is located in
another part of the yard. The Company have made great
play about the fact that the worker was off area,
however this is not all that unusual.
(c) The worker does not accept the suspension or dismissal
as he was going about his normal duties. There are
signed statements from his supervisors and colleagues
to the effect that on the day in question he was
carrying out normal duties under instruction.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) On the 10th July, 1987 an attempt was made to remove
Company property from the Company premises without the
necessary authorisation. The worker concerned placed
these goods on the lorry and his explanation for doing
so was unacceptable.
(ii) The Company carried out a fair and thorough
investigation of the case within the paramaters of
normal good industrial relations practice and
obligations as required by the Unfair Dismissals Act,
1977 (details supplied to the Court).
(iii) The investigation left Management in no doubt that the
worker concerned was guilty of gross misconduct
involving an attempt to remove Company property from
Company premises in an unauthorised way, and this left
the Company with no alternative but to terminate the
worker's employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company did not act
unreasonably in the circumstances of this case and that it has an
obligation to ensure that the movement of its goods is properly
controlled. Having heard the submissions the Court accepts that
some malpractice occurred. However the Court considers the
dismissal of the worker here involved is too serious a penalty and
accordingly recommends a period of suspension from 21st July, 1987
to 31st October, 1987 and a further 3 month probationary period to
terminate on 31st January, 1988 and on satisfactory completion of
this period the worker to be fully re-instated.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
28th September, 1987
M.D./J.C.