Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8897 Case Number: LCR11803 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FULFLEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the reinstatement of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the behaviour of the claimant was work
related and was serious enough to warrant dismissal. However, the
Court is satisfied that if the claimant had not consumed so much
on the night in question at a Company sponsored function the
incident would not have occurred. The Court, therefore,
recommends that the period since the dismissal up to 30th April,
1988 be treated as a period of unpaid suspension. The claimant
should then be re-employed on probation and he should undertake as
a special condition of his probationary period to be of good
behaviour and not to engage in the kind of abusive bantering which
took place in the past in this employment. Management should also
make it clear to all employees that it will not tolerate a
continuation of the atmosphere which prevailed in the plant before
Christmas and that it is the duty of all employees to behave in a
reasonable and mature manner to all other employees in the
Company.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8897 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11803
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FULFLEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the reinstatement of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs one hundred and sixty four people in the
manufacture of elastic threads, tapes and rings and is located in
Galvone, Limerick. The Company's sports and social club held its
annual Christmas social night on 23rd December, 1987 in the Royal
George Hotel, Limerick. At this function a disagreement took
place between two workers which resulted in one worker striking
the other over the head with a glass bottle and causing him severe
injuries. That worker was unable to resume work until 14th
February, 1988. After the Christmas holidays the Company held an
inquiry into the incident and on 15th January, 1988 confirmed in
writing its decision to dismiss the worker. The Union sought his
reinstatement. As the Company was not prepared to accede to this
request the Union referred the matter to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 3rd February, 1988 and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held in Limerick on 2nd March,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has five years' service and has an
exceptional work record, yet because of one moment of
stupidity he is losing his job.
2. The workforce is concerned at the action taken by the
Company as the in-house agreement does not cover matters
occurring outside the Company premises. They are not prepared
to have management interfering in their private lives and are
prepared to take action to prevent this.
3. Serious incidents of fighting have occurred on Company
premises in the past for which workers were suspended and
disciplined but never dismissed (details supplied to the
Court). The Company is not acting fairly in this worker's
case.
3. 4. The worker's recollection is that he was struck first by
the other worker. However, he is prepared to accept otherwise
in the interests of settling the matter and because his
recollection is hazy due to the amount of drink he had taken.
The Company should accept partial responsibility for this as
it provided money for drink before the social function. The
worker concerned therefore received five or six drinks plus a
number of rounds before actually going to the function. He
has apologised to the worker he assaulted who has accepted
his apology and who has pleaded with the Company for the
worker's job to no avail.
5. The worker has a wife and family to support. He is
unlikely to find employment in the present economic climate.
His home and his family will be affected forever by the
Company decision. He is already facing a criminal charge for
the assault. The Company could have shown some old-fashioned
Christian charity towards him and his family.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a duty and responsibility to its
employees to manage. This involves taking appropriate
disciplinary action, which may include dismissal, following a
full investigation. In this case the decision to dismiss was
not taken lightly. A full investigation was held, the facts
evaluated and representations made by the Union on the
worker's behalf were taken into consideration. The Company is
satisfied that it took the correct course of action.
2. There is evidence that the worker here concerned, among
others, conducted a campaign of vilification and intimidation
against the assaulted worker for the past number of years
which that worker tried to ignore. The assault was the
culmination of this hostility.
3. The Company sees this unprovoked assault as gross
misconduct and, as such, substantial grounds for dismissal.
The nature of the assault was such as to destroy the working
relationship between these two employees for the future. It
also had the effect of breaking the trust and confidence of
the Company in the worker here concerned.
4. Any action other then dismissal in this case would
undermine discipline and legitimise acts of violence and as
such could present a mortal danger to those employees and
responsible persons who are its victims or potential victims.
It also undermines the Company's ability to manage which, in
the long term, could threaten its survival.
5. This incident has brought the Company and its employees
into disrepute in the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the behaviour of the claimant was work
related and was serious enough to warrant dismissal. However, the
Court is satisfied that if the claimant had not consumed so much
on the night in question at a Company sponsored function the
incident would not have occurred. The Court, therefore,
recommends that the period since the dismissal up to 30th April,
1988 be treated as a period of unpaid suspension. The claimant
should then be re-employed on probation and he should undertake as
a special condition of his probationary period to be of good
behaviour and not to engage in the kind of abusive bantering which
took place in the past in this employment. Management should also
make it clear to all employees that it will not tolerate a
continuation of the atmosphere which prevailed in the plant before
Christmas and that it is the duty of all employees to behave in a
reasonable and mature manner to all other employees in the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st April, 1988 ------------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman