Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89752 Case Number: LCR12667 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: EMERALD CITY PRODUCTIONS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that a workers dismissal was unfair.
Recommendation:
5. Having examined the detailed evidence submitted by both
parties in this case the Court finds no grounds on which it could
justify recommending re-instatement of the claimant.
The Court accordingly rejects the Union's claim and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89752 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12667
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: EMERALD CITY PRODUCTIONS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a workers dismissal was unfair.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of animated
cartoons. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in October, 1988. In May, 1989 he and two other workers
were dismissed from the Company because of poor attendance
records. The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and as a result of his recommendation the workers
were re-engaged as from 31st July, 1989. The Company maintains
that immediately the worker concerned was re-engaged he reverted
to late time keeping, his work was of a poor standard, his
attitude to supervisors and his relationship with co-workers was
unacceptable. The worker was issued with two written warnings in
August, 1989 and was dismissed on the 1st September, 1989. The
Union claims that the dismissal was unfair and that the worker was
victimised because of his Union membership. It is seeking
re-employment of the worker with no loss of earnings. The Company
rejected the Union's claim and declined to avail of the services
of the conciliation service of the Labour Court. On the 24th
October, 1989 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing
was held on the 28th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker received a letter of warning from the Company
regarding his work on the 1st August, 1989. This was his
second day back at work. On recommencing employment he was
put on work which he had never done before. On the day in
question he was asked to complete a cel in a deliberately
incorrect fashion. He informed his supervisor that he did not
have a colour chart or the correct colours. He was instructed
to do the work in any case. The Union wrote the Company and
pointed out this fact. The Union also sought a meeting with
the Company to agree procedures and negotiate a Union/Company
agreement. This was refused. The worker again received
another letter regarding his work on the 21st August, 1989.
He had only been working for two weeks.
2. On the 1st September, 1989 he was given one week's notice
which was changed to immediate dismissal on the same day. The
Company refused to meet the Union to discuss the dismissal.
The letter of dismissal was enlarged and put on the notice
board for all staff to see, and stated that he was being
dismissed for his work, attendance, attitude and relationship
with other workers. The Union wishes to point out that he has
been on time for work since his return on 31st July, 1989. He
carried out all instructions including those designed to
embarrass and humiliate him. He related well to other
workers.
3. Under the terms of an agreement between the Dublin
animation studios and the I.D.A. the employee may not work in
another studio for twelve months from the termination of his
employment with the Company. In this way the worker is
effectively debarred from working. The Union is seeking
re-employment for the worker with no loss of earnings, and a
commitment from the Company to negotiate a
disciplinary/grievance procedure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed in the first instance (May, 1989)
for continual lateness. Such lateness cannot be tolerated as
it disrupts production schedules. The Company voluntarily
agreed to take the worker back and he began his second
probationary period on 31st July, 1989. It soon became
apparent to Management and other employees that the worker
concerned was using the second probationary period as an
opportunity to disrupt the studio. The Company does not
believe that he ever intended to fulfil his obligations. He
displayed arrogance and rudeness to supervisors and made no
attempt to do satisfactory work. The Company rejects the
Union's statement that the worker was victimised because of
his Union membership.
2. By the end of the first month of his re-employment he had
so disrupted his department that productivity plunged
preventing vital work being completed. His supervisors called
for his immediate dismissal and management agreed that this
action was necessary. The employee concerned was never asked
to do work which others in the Company were not already doing
- to the satisfaction of supervisors. The Company is now
trying to bring back production to previous levels. The other
employees in the Company are voluntarily putting in extra
effort in order to make up for the lost work which the worker
concerned was employed on. He has already cost the Company a
great deal of time and money, diverting finances from the
Company budget that could better be used for rewarding the
extra productivity of the rest of the workforce. The other
workers in the Company have informed Management that bringing
back the worker concerned would result in resignations of some
of the best people in the Company. Since the Company is
dependent on the goodwill and hard work of the other employees
to meet production goals, the Company cannot consider agreeing
to any action that could result in his re-instatement.
3. The Union has suggested that there is an agreement between
the three animation houses in Dublin, not to hire any worker
who has been employed at one of the other studios. The
Company has never agreed to such an arrangement, and in fact
recently hired employees who were dismissed by two of the
other studios. The Company understands that some of its
former employees are now working for the other studios and
have no objection to the worker concerned being hired by them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having examined the detailed evidence submitted by both
parties in this case the Court finds no grounds on which it could
justify recommending re-instatement of the claimant.
The Court accordingly rejects the Union's claim and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
4th December, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.