Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88254 Case Number: LCR11960 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JAEBRADE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker for compensation and a reference following an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company was in breach of the
agreed disciplinary procedures and accordingly recommends that the
applicant be paid a sum of £400 in settlement of his claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88254 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11960
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: JAEBRADE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for compensation and a reference following
an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a night supervisor by Jaebrade
Security Services Limited who have a security contract with
Nutgrove Shopping Centre in Rathfarnham. He worked shifts from 6
p.m. until 8 a.m. midweek and from 9 p.m. until 8 a.m. at weekends
and late night shopping days. His duties were to patrol the
premises with two other security officers over whom the worker had
charge. On 21st September, 1987 the worker was dismissed by the
Company on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Company alleges
that the worker was guilty of the following:-
1. Falsifying Records
2. Sleeping on duty
3. Failure to do his own required duty patrols
4. Failure to do required door duty.
5. Leaving the Contract shift early on
numerous occasions.
The complaints about the worker's performance were made to
management by other members of staff. The allegations of
misconduct are denied by the worker. Following his dismissal, the
worker sought to have the matter investigated by a Rights
Commissioner under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, but the
Company objected to this procedure. On 24th February, 1988, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by
the Court's recommendation. He claimed compensation from the
Company for his allegedly unfair dismissal and also a reference
from the Company. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 24th
June, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The grounds on which the dismissal was based are not
true. The patrol roster is signed by the officer returning
from patrol of the premises. Such a roster shows that each
officer is carrying out his duties. The worker also signed a
report book which shows each incident which occurs during a
shift.
2. The worker was not given the names of all those who were
alleged to have made complaints against him. The worker is
not even certain that there were complaints.
3. If there was dissatisfaction with the worker's
performance he should have been warned and given a chance to
improve instead of being dismissed on the spot. Proper
procedures were not followed.
4. It is true that the worker left his place of work early
on some mornings; he had an arrangement with the day shift
whereby he would finish earlier in the morning but start
earlier in the evening. This is a common practice in the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On or about the 9/8/87 the mobile Supervisor reported a
complaint of a Security Officer as a result of an attempt by
that Supervisor to contact Nutgrove Shopping Centre by radio.
The mobile Supervisor's radio call was not answered and he
then called to the Shopping Centre to check the situation.
When he arrived he was informed by a Security Officer that the
worker had given instructions that he (the mobile Supervisor)
was not to be allowed on the premises except on official
business. When the Supervisor saw the worker he pursued the
matter of the radio message. An argument broke out with the
mobile officer during which the worker refused to allow the
supervisor to enter the Shopping Centre in spite of the fact
that it was his specific duty to do so during mobile checks.
2. The worker was interviewed by the General Manager on the
4th September, 1987 concerning this incident and other
allegations about the worker's non-performance of duties while
on shift. These included sleeping on duty, failure to do his
share of duty patrols, failure to do the required door duty,
leaving the contract early on numerous occasions and
falsifying the patrol log. The worker denied all the
allegations including the allegation of falsifying records.
The interview became very heated and culminated with the
worker saying that he would not work again under the manager.
He subsequently calmed down and returned to his duties.
3. There were further complaints made on the 11th September,
1987, by other Security Officers about the conduct of the
worker. It was alleged that he frequently did not carry out
his security patrols on the premises when it was his turn to
do so. It was also alleged that the worker entered his own
name on the report sheet as having carried out his duties,
when in fact other members of staff had carried out his
duties.
4. On 19th September, 1987, further complaints from two
Security Officers (one of whom had previously complained) were
received by the General Manager. The complaints again
referred to falsifying the log, sleeping on duty, and not
carrying out normal duties. On 20th September, 1987, a
Security Officer was sent home by the worker for not carrying
out an order. The order was to return to a certain location
on patrol; the Security Officer's explanation was that he had
just finished a 50 minute patrol and that it was the worker's
patrol at that time. On 21st September, 1987, the Manager
interviewed all members of staff who had shared a duty roster
with the worker. These included four security officers and
two inspectors. They were interviewed separately, and they
confirmed the accuracy of the complaints already received.
5. As a result of statements taken from complainants, the
Manager interviewed the worker. He indicated to the worker
that he had received complaints about:-
1. Falsification of Records
2. Sleeping on duty.
3. Not doing required patrols.
4. Not doing door duty.
5. Leaving work early each morning.
The worker was asked to explain his conduct but he offered no
explanation. The Manager indicated to the worker that he was
satisfied that the complaints were true and that he had no
option but to dismiss the worker.
6. Any one breach of duty committed by the worker was in
itself sufficiently serious to justify instant dismissal. The
variety and frequency of the complaints only made matters more
serious from the employer's point of view. The dismissal was
fully justified having regard to all the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company was in breach of the
agreed disciplinary procedures and accordingly recommends that the
applicant be paid a sum of £400 in settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-----------------
21st July, 1988
P.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman