Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88727 Case Number: LCR12116 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SECURICOR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the termination of employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
is of the view that in the circumstances the Company did not act
in an unreasonable manner and accordingly the Court does not find
in favour of the claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88727 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12116
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SECURICOR (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the termination of employment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company since
November, 1982, as a static guard and was assigned to a factory/
plant on Dublin's northside at the time of termination of
contract. On the 27th May, 1988, the client company's plant
manager wrote a memo to the security staff expressing
dissatisfaction with regard to the answering of telephones. As
the claimant was the only member of the security staff on day
work, he interpreted the memo as being directly aimed at him and
on the following day he sent a written reply to the plant manager
(details supplied to the Court). Upon receipt of this, the plant
manager contacted management in Securicor to voice his deep
concern at the tone and contents of the claimant's reply. On the
30th May, Securicor Management held a meeting with the plant
manager following which the claimant was suspended on pay pending
further investigation of the matter. Following several meetings
between the parties, the claimant's employment was terminated on
the 10th June. Management claim that he voluntarily resigned
(details supplied to the Court) but this is disputed by the Union
which claims he resigned because undue pressure was put on him by
Management. The Company rejected a Union request that the worker
be reinstated and as no agreement could be reached locally, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Because the Company declined an invitation to attend a
conciliation conference, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 25th October,
1988, at which the Company did not attend. By letter dated the
19th October, 1988, the Company's FUE representative outlined to
the Court its version of events and its reasons for not attending
the Court hearing. These are listed below under "Company's
arguments".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The claimant had experienced difficulties regarding the
answering of telephones (details supplied to the Court) and
it was because of this that he was spoken to by the plant
manager on both the 4th and 6th of May. The claimant tried
to explain that due to the internal telephone system he was
finding it difficult to distinguish between the phone ringing
and the other factory noises, in addition to the normal
traffic in the reception area, but the plant manager was not
interested and refused to listen.
3.2 The memo of the 27th May from the plant manager to the
security staff should not under any circumstances have been
sent but should instead have gone to the management of
Securicor.
3.3 The claimant served with distinction in the American army and
is used to carrying out orders to the letter. Therefore, if
instructions are given to him which are not included in his
assignment instructions, he may find it difficult to
understand. Furthermore, the Company accept that he is an
excellent security guard and was prepared to find him
alternative employment with another company.
3.4 By putting undue pressure on the claimant to resign,
Management acted unreasonably. It could quite easily have
taken him off the assignment he was on and placed him in
another location as was done in the past with other security
guards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The claimant voluntarily terminated his contract of
employment and signed an agreement to the effect that the sum
of #632.20 would be paid to him in full and final settlement
of all claims on the Company, inclusive of all statutory
entitlements and including any claim under the Unfair
Dismissals Act, 1977, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment
Act, 1973, and the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 (details
supplied to the Court). When the claimant voluntarily signed
the agreement, he fully understood the contents and the
implications contained therein.
4.2 The Company hold that by bringing a claim under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, he is in breach of an
agreement he freely entered into. Accordingly, the Company
maintains that it would not be prudent industrial relations
practice to make representations on a claim which is
effectively debarred by the contents of this agreement.
Given all the facts, the Company is satisfied that it has
acted as a fair and reasonable employer.
4.3 In the light of the preceding circumstances the Company
respectfully requests the Court to accept its apology for
non-attendance at the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
is of the view that in the circumstances the Company did not act
in an unreasonable manner and accordingly the Court does not find
in favour of the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th November, 1988 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman