Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87867 Case Number: AD8825 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SAVERMO LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
An appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 106/87 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
8. In view of the evidence presented at the hearing the Court
subsequently wrote to the parties concerned.
The Court having considered the submissions from both parties and
additional information requested and received subsequent to the
hearing is not satisfied that there is sufficient substantial
evidence which would justify altering the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87867 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2588
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: SAVERMO LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 106/87 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was the in-house security division of the Appollo
Booker Group and provided static guards in all the Appollo shops.
The Group is made up of a wholesale division, a security division
and several retail outlets.
3. The worker concerned was employed as a static guard from
November, 1986, until his dismissal in May, 1987, and would have
from time to time worked in different shops.
4. In May, 1987, Management received a complaint that the worker
concerned had approached a till operator in the Westmoreland
Street, branch and encouraged her to participate with him in a
fraud. The worker was suspended pending investigation. Following
the investigation the worker was dismissed on 25th May, 1987,
(shortly after the worker's dismissal the Company ceased trading).
5. The matter was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Following an investigation held
on 7th and 20th October, 1987, the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation -
"In the light of the above I must hold that management did not
act unfairly in all the circumstances in dismissing the
worker from his employment with the Company. Therefore the
claim by the trade union must fail".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
6. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 11th December, 1987. The F.U.E.
wrote to the Court to advise that no representative of the Company
would be in attendance as the Company was no longer in existence
and also that the present owners would not be in attendance either
as they had no involvement in the dismissal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker never done anything wrong. He never
approached any member of staff along the lines suggested and
is completely mystified as to why and who should make any
such allegation. He is placed in the unenviable position in
that it is his word against an unknown accuser.
2. The Company involved the Gardai at an early stage and
were expressing confidence that a charge would follow.
However the Gardai investigation was inconclusive and no
charge was brought against the worker concerned.
3. The worker was not working in the Westmoreland Street
branch at the time of the alleged incident.
4. The Union claimed compensation of approximately 39 weeks
gross pay based on losing his job, the loss of the benefit of
a severence package when the Company closed and the
subsequent loss of another job because of the circumstances
of his dismissal.
DECISION:
8. In view of the evidence presented at the hearing the Court
subsequently wrote to the parties concerned.
The Court having considered the submissions from both parties and
additional information requested and received subsequent to the
hearing is not satisfied that there is sufficient substantial
evidence which would justify altering the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th May, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman