Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88131 Case Number: LCR11784 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - A WORKER |
Claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
9. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court is unable to
say whether the allegations made against the claimant were
substantiated. Nevertheless the Court considers that Management
acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances obtaining
at the time. In these circumstances the Court does not find any
grounds on which it can recommend the payment of compensation.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88131 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11784
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed to the College as a
part-time cleaner on the 28th October, 1986. She worked twenty
hours per week, from 6.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m., Monday to Friday in
the Berkeley Library. She was one of a team of eight cleaners
four of whom worked on the ground floor, two on the first floor
and two more on the top floor. The worker concerned worked on the
first floor.
3. Over a period of time, starting in March, 1987, two of the
cleaners working on the ground floor had reported the
disappearance of money and property from their cloakroom (details
supplied to the Court). Following the reported thefts a key was
obtained for the cleaners' cloakroom on the ground floor. The
cloakroom was kept locked and the only two keys were kept by two
of the cleaners working on the ground floor. There were no
further thefts reported from the ground floor cloakroom.
The claimant and her colleague kept their belongings in the first
floor cloakroom which was in an office behind a desk which was
normally manned by a library assistant. This office was not
locked after 9.00 a.m.
4. In early June, 1987, the claimant's colleague reported the
following thefts from her handbag to the Lady Housekeeper:-
- 4/6/87 - 45p in change plus two cigarettes.
- 5/6/87 - some silver change (less than £1)
- 15/6/87 - 96p plus four cigarettes.
On Monday 22nd June, acting on the advice of the Chief Security
Officer, the cleaner recorded the numbers of three £1 notes which
she had in her handbag. Only the Chief Security Officer, the Lady
Housekeeper and the cleaner knew of this. When she returned to
her handbag at approximately 9.30 a.m. one of the notes was
missing. She had recorded the serial number of this note as
ADJ003284. The matter was reported to the Chief Security Officer
who requested assistance from Pearse Street Garda Station. A
detective from the station interviewed members of the cleaning
staff and discovered the missing £1 note in the claimant's purse.
She was arrested and taken to Pearse Street Garda Station where
she was charged with theft. She was later interviewed by the Lady
Housekeeper and the Personnel Officer and was informed that the
College was holding its own investigation into the incident and
that until it had completed its investigation, she was suspended
with pay. A further meeting was arranged for 3.00 p.m. on the
25th June. At this second meeting, she was informed of the
details of the College's investigation and was given an
opportunity to put her side of the case. She denied taking the
money and was unable to account for it being in her purse.
Management subsequently dismissed her.
5. She was later brought to Court and tried for theft but the
jury was unable to agree on a verdict and a re-trial was ordered.
However, before the new trial was held, the State dropped all
charges against her.
6. On the 15th February, 1988, the worker concerned referred a
case alleging unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, agreeing beforehand
to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on the 16th March, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker has consistently denied having taken the
money and is unable to account for the money being in her
purse. Normally she never brought her purse with her to work
but on the day in question she had a lot of money with her to
do some shopping.
2. The worker has suffered a lot of harassment and anxiety
as a result of the incident and her Court appearance. She
worked for 15 years and was never in any kind of trouble
before. She feels her character has been taken and is seeking
to have her name cleared and the payment of compensation for
the trauma suffered since the incident.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There had been no thefts from cleaning staff in the
Berkeley Library prior to the worker's transfer to that area.
Following her transfer to the Berkeley Library there was a
series of thefts of property belonging to other members of the
cleaning staff, in areas to which she had access. When access
was restricted to the ground floor cloakroom, thefts occurred
only from her colleague's bag in the first floor cloakroom.
2. She was unable to account for the presence of a pound
note belonging to another member of staff in her handbag.
Although she denied having stolen the money, she could suggest
no reason why anyone else would have put the money in her bag.
There had been no arguments or animosity between her and the
other cleaners or any other staff in the Berkeley Library.
3. The College believes that it behaved reasonably and
fairly with regard to the way in which it conducted its
investigations of the incident on 22nd June, 1987. A thorough
investigation of the incident was carried out by the Chief
Security Officer. The worker was fully informed of the result
of the investigation, and given every chance to account for
the situation. The decision to dismiss her was taken only
after the facts revealed by the investigation, and her
comments had been carefully considered. In the College's
view, the investigation showed that it was most likely that
she had taken the money.
4. Cleaners in Trinity College may have access in the
course of their work to student residences, classrooms and
offices. The College believes that it has a duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the property of individuals, and
of the College itself, in these areas. It is therefore
important that the College should be able to trust staff who
have access to these areas during their work. The College
also wished to protect, as far as is practicable, those in its
employment, from the theft of their property.
5. In the light of all the circumstances of the case, based
on a reasonable examination of the facts, the College took the
view that it could no longer trust the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court is unable to
say whether the allegations made against the claimant were
substantiated. Nevertheless the Court considers that Management
acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances obtaining
at the time. In these circumstances the Court does not find any
grounds on which it can recommend the payment of compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
11th April, 1988 --------------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman