Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89245 Case Number: LCR12360 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MELCHERT ELECTRONICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim seeking the re-instatement of a dismissed worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that practices in relation to "clocking
out" were not adequately controlled and that Management has at
least some responsibility for the situation which arose in this
case.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the Court recommends that
the claimant should be regarded as having been given a final
warning and also as having been on suspension to the 31st May,
1989. The Court further recommends that he be re-instated in
employment in the Company.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89245 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12360
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MELCHERT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim seeking the re-instatement of a dismissed worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures printed circuit boards at its plant
in Listowel, County Kerry.
The worker concerned was employed as a storeman/driver and as part
of his duties he made deliveries in the Company van to a freight
company in the Shannon Industrial Estate each Friday. In
December, 1988, the Company discovered that there was reason to
believe that the times being entered by the claimant were not in
keeping with the amount of time taken to make the deliveries to
Shannon and to return to Listowel (he usually left Listowel at
around 5 p.m. and clocked back in at around 10.30 p.m.). He was
suspended from work pending an investigation of the issue by
Management. Following the investigation he was dismissed for
falsification of Company records. He denies that he falsified
records but did admit that he normally claimed between 5 and 5.50
hours for the return trip to Shannon even if he returned in
shorter time. He also claimed that both his predecessors engaged
in the same practice. The Union considers that perhaps some form
of disciplinary action was necessary but there is no justification
for dismissing the worker. Following the failure of local level
discussions, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 21st December, 1988. Several
conciliation conferences took place during February and March,
1988, but no agreement was reached and on the 30th March, the
issue was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 12th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. According to the claimant the normal practice and
understanding was that he had between 5 and 5.50 hours to
complete his journey and if he completed it in less than this
time he would still claim the allowed time. When he was first
employed by the Company, he was shown the job by his
predecessor and it was explained to him that he had an average
of 5 to 5.50 hours for the Shannon journey regardless of the
time it would take him. This is a practice he continued for
the three years he worked for the Company and at no time was
he questioned or reprimanded about it.
2. The Company has no formal training programme. As new
employees are recruited they are allocated to the various
departments and it is the existing employees who explain the
work and work practices.
3. At no time did the worker receive a warning, either
verbally or in writing regarding the length of time the
deliveries were taking.
4. Perhaps the claimant was wrong in thinking that 5 to 5.50
hours for the Shannon run was acceptable to the Company and
perhaps there is need for some form of disciplinary action to
be taken against him but to dismiss him for what he regarded
as a normal practice cannot be justified. Furthermore the
claimant emphatically denies he falsified Company records.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the claimant's admission that he had regularly
claimed up to 5.50 hours for the Shannon journey, he was advised
that he was being suspended with pay and that he and his Union
would be formally notified of the decision resulting from the
Company's full investigation of the matter. He was clearly
put on notice that this matter was most serious and
potentially dismissable. On the 9th December he was
advised in writing that his employment was being terminated as
a result of falsifying Company records in the form of time
sheets.
2. At a subsequent local level meeting the Union sought to
have the penalty reduced. Both the claimant and his
representatives were afforded a further opportunity to make
further arguments. The Company gave due consideration to
these arguments but considered that the decision to dismiss
was the correct one in the light of all the circumstances.
4. 3. The Company can show that there is precedent for its
action and that in the circumstances an admission of
falsification of records is a dismissable matter (details
supplied to the Court).
4. Contrary to what the claimant and the Union have argued,
there was no custom and practice whereby 5.50 hours was
designated for the Shannon journey.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that practices in relation to "clocking
out" were not adequately controlled and that Management has at
least some responsibility for the situation which arose in this
case.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the Court recommends that
the claimant should be regarded as having been given a final
warning and also as having been on suspension to the 31st May,
1989. The Court further recommends that he be re-instated in
employment in the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___24th___April,___1989. _______________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman