Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87902 Case Number: LCR11676 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MEMOREX MEDIA PRODUCTS - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim for the reinstatement of a worker without loss of wages.
Recommendation:
6. In considering the merits of this claim the Court took note of
the problem which the Company was experiencing with regard to the
level of pilfering in the plant, as a result of which the unions
were informed that anyone found to have stolen Company property
would be dismissed.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant's actions left him
subject to disciplinary action by the Company but considers that
dismissal was too severe. The Court therefore recommends that he
be re-instated from February, 22nd 1988 and that he be subject to
a six months probationery period.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87902 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11676
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MEMOREX MEDIA PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the reinstatement of a worker without loss of wages.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is located on the Cloverhill Industrial
Estate in Clondalkin, is engaged in the manufacture of flexible
discs and employs 125 workers. This claim concerns a worker who
was employed by the Company as a line technician (fitter) from
1982 until his dismissal at 12.45 p.m. on 20th October, 1987. The
reason given for the dismissal was theft of Company property. The
Company stated that the offence had taken place between 19.20 and
19.30 on 20th October, 1987 and that an eyewitness had seen the
worker rifling the vending machine in the canteen and taking
chocolate bars from it. The worker denied any knowledge of the
theft. The worker subsequently admitted taking one chocolate bar
from the vending machine and paid for it the following afternoon.
The Union was not satisfied there was evidence to justify the
worker's dismissal and claimed his re-instatement without loss of
pay. The Company rejected the claim.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and the
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner. However, the
parties could not agree under which Act the matter should be
investigated by the Rights Commissioner. On 17th November, 1987
the Union referred the case to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed in advance to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 15th January,
1988, a hearing arranged for an earlier date was postponed at the
request of one of the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did enter the canteen and poured himself a cup
of tea. He went to the vending machine to get a bar of
chocolate (the only available food in the canteen) and
discovered the door of the machine open. The machine had an
out-of-order sign on the door and cellotape over the money
slot. The worker took a bar of chocolate intending to pay for
it the next day (which he did). He then went to the locker
room changed and went home leaving the premises at 7.30 p.m.
4. 2. If any irregular behaviour was observed, it was
extraordinary that the worker was not stopped leaving the
premises. The worker passed the security man at his station
at the main entrance, yet no attempt was made either by the
security man or his supervisor, who was in the security
office, to stop him leaving the premises.
3. No evidence has been offered to the Union to justify the
dismissal and it is satisfied that no basis for dismissal
exists. The worker should therefore be re-instated.
4. The worker has been employed by the Company since 1982.
While he has been employed the Company have never had cause
for complaint either about his work standard or conduct.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was previously cautioned by his supervisor for
circumventing security by using the exit door at the back of
the plant. At 19.15 hours on Tuesday, 20th October, he used
this door to come round to the employee entrance where he
proceeded to the canteen. After rifling the vending machine
he then proceeded to his car and started the engine. He then
returned to the employees entrance and went to his clock-out
station where he clocked out at 19.31 hours and left the
plant.
2. After initially denying the accusation, the worker
subsequently admitted taking one bar from the vending machine.
3. The worker was seen removing bars of chocolate from the
vending machine. Subsequent stock checks revealed that a
total of 17 bars were missing.
4. The worker was the only person in the canteen at the time
of the theft and was clearly identified as the person
interfering with the vending machine and removing chocolate
bars.
5. The Company had only recently notified all its employees
that pilferage of Company property would lead to dismissal.
The worker in addition was specifically cautioned about
circumventing plant security arrangements.
6. Once the events of Tuesday, 20th October were brought to
the attention of management it investigated the matter and had
no option but to dismiss the worker in accordance with stated
Company policy.
5. 7. Over the past months the level of pilferage has increased
in the plant and the Company has had to increase the level of
plant security. The Garda Siochana were also notified and
given details of goods stolen from the plant. The items
stolen have ranged from packaged product costing thousands of
pounds, to minor items. The Unions, were notified of the
pilferage problem and informed that anyone, without exception,
found to have stolen Company property would be dismissed. The
Company recently posted a notice on the main notice board
informing every employee of the pilferage problem. It also
advised them of the consequence for anyone discovered stealing
company property, i.e., instant dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. In considering the merits of this claim the Court took note of
the problem which the Company was experiencing with regard to the
level of pilfering in the plant, as a result of which the unions
were informed that anyone found to have stolen Company property
would be dismissed.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant's actions left him
subject to disciplinary action by the Company but considers that
dismissal was too severe. The Court therefore recommends that he
be re-instated from February, 22nd 1988 and that he be subject to
a six months probationery period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___8th____February,___1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman