Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8880 Case Number: LCR11741 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND;IRISH WOMEN WORKERS BRANCH |
The alleged unfair dismissal of one driver and claim for compensatory payment to him.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the failure to pay the agreed
amount of £500 is due largely to a misunderstanding and recommends
that the Company now pay it without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8880 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11741
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH WOMEN WORKERS BRANCH
SUBJECT:
1. The alleged unfair dismissal of one driver and claim for
compensatory payment to him.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a driver
on 26th February, 1986. His duties were to transport cleaners
from various pick-up points, morning and evening, to various
locations where the Company had cleaning contracts. His rate of
pay was £180 per week. In June, 1986 the Operations Director
declared the driver redundant. Following a threatened dispute
this notice was withdrawn. A further incident occurred in June,
1986 whereby the driver failed to transport cleaners to a
location, involving the Company in £25 taxi expenses. The Union
states that this was due to a fault in the minibus. A deduction
of £25 was made from the driver's wages. In September, 1986 the
Company again told the driver that he was no longer needed, due to
the loss of a contract. Following negotiations with the Union he
was retained in employment with a reduction in wages to £140 per
week due to a reduction in duties. The worker was thereafter
involved in further incidents (i.e. accidents with the minibus and
failure to turn up for duty). This resulted in the imposition of
a fine of £100 in January, 1987, to be paid at a rate of £10 per
week. The Company also issued a final warning stating that
further misdemeanour within the ten week period would result in
dismissal. On 13th March, 1987 the driver was involved in an
accident on the Guinness site. Union/Management meetings took
place to discuss the worker's situation. He was dismissed with
effect from 1st May, 1977. The Union contended that his dismissal
was unfair and unwarranted. However, due to what was seen as a
poor interpersonal relationship between the driver and the
Operations Director, compensation rather than reinstatement was
sought. The Union contends that it negotiated a compensatory sum
of £500 with the Operations Director in full and final settlement
of the worker's claim. The Company did not pay this sum. On 19th
June, 1987 the Operations Director moved to the Company's British
operation and has since left the Company's employment altogether.
The Union sought payment of the £500 but the Company denied that
any such commitment had been entered into. The Union sought to
refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner and also to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court, but the Company was not
willing to attend. The Union, on 27th January, 1988, referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court hearing took place on 26th
February, 1988. Prior to the hearing, the Union agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union worker's dismissal was unfair. He was placed
under inordinate pressure during his employment with the
Company. He suffered a £40 reduction in salary and had a £100
fine imposed on him. The incidents which occurred with the
minibus and in relation to non arrival for duty in all
instances occurred because of valid reasons. The Union
considers that the worker was unfairly disciplined. He was
treated by management in a most hurtful and sarcastic manner.
The Company twice attempted to remove the worker from his
employment and on both occasions the Union succeeded in having
him retained.
2. But for the worker's family commitments he would have
resigned. The Union contends that a successful case of
constructive dismissal could have been fought and won.
3. The Operations Manager entered into a commitment with the
Union to pay compensation of £500 to the worker. The Company
has refused to honour this agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's dismissal was fair and warranted. He had an
appalling record of motor accidents and absenteeism during the
short period of his employment. He showed little regard for
his job and must bear full responsibility for its loss. He
was issued with a number of warnings culminating in a final
warning in January, 1987. Subsequently, he was involved in a
further motor accident.
2. The Company contends that no agreement was entered into to
pay £500 compensation to the worker.
3. During his period of notice the worker refused to bring
the new driver on a tour of pick-up points.
4. The new recruit was employed on a temporary basis until
October, 1987. Following the loss of a contract, there is
currently no requirement for a driver.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the failure to pay the agreed
amount of £500 is due largely to a misunderstanding and recommends
that the Company now pay it without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
14th March, 1988. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.