Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89819 Case Number: LCR12670 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: EMERALD CITY PRODUCTIONS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that the dismissal of a worker was unfair.
Recommendation:
5. Taking into account the previous recommendation of a Rights
Commissioner the Court is of the view that, on the basis of the
claimants attendance record subsequent to re-instatement, the
Company did not act unfairly.
The Court accordingly rejects the Union's claim and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89819 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12670
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 AND 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: EMERALD CITY PRODUCTIONS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that the dismissal of a worker was unfair.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of animation
cartoons. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in January, 1989. In May, 1989, along with two other
workers, he was dismissed for poor time keeping. The matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and as a
result of his recommendation the workers were re-engaged by the
Company on the 31st July, 1989. Management claim that on
resumption the worker concerned was a disruptive influence in the
studio, and subsequently reverted to his late attendance pattern.
The worker received written warnings about his conduct in
September and was dismissed on the 31st October, 1989. The Union
claims that the dismissal was unfair, that the worker was singled
out for harsh treatment by Management because of his Union
membership. The Union is seeking his re-instatement without loss
of earnings. The Union requested that the matter be referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court but the Company was
not agreeable to such a reference. On the 6th November, 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. Almost immediately on resumption of work the employee
concerned was the victim of harassment and victimisation by
the Company. He was not returned to his previous duty but was
required to do work which he had not done previously. All
other staff, with the exception of the worker concerned were
offered flexible working. He was given deliberate
instructions to carry out work incorrectly. The worker's time
keeping record was better than most workers in the Company.
Others whose records were much worse received no warnings
whatsoever. Included in the "reasons" for his dismissal was
one week's illness and time off to go to the Revenue
Commissioners. The Union is of the view that from the day of
the worker's re-engagement the Company set out to create a
dismissal situation which would "stand up" unlike the previous
one.
2. The Union has represented workers in the Irish Film
Industry since 1917. The extent of the anti-union bias of
this Company has certainly affected its ability to exercise
correct judgement. In its efforts to "discourage" union
membership, any known members are socially isolated and
geographically segregated in the Company. Where possible, as
in this case particularly where the Unfair Dismissals Act does
not apply no time is wasted in getting rid of those who do not
fit in with the Company view. As the worker concerned was
dismissed for alleged "lates" the Union rejects same and
believes that the worker neither prior to or after his
re-engagement was the worst offender. If lates are to be
monitored they must be equally applied to all. If this had
been done the worker could not have been singled out as he
was. The Union is seeking his reinstatement without loss of
earnings and a commitment from the Company to negotiate an
agreed "lates" procedure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation the
Company voluntarily agreed to his request that the worker be
taken back and given a chance to prove himself a good worker.
His second probationary period began on 31st July, 1989.
Throughout August, he engaged in a series of confrontations
with his supervisors which disrupted the production schedule
and upset fellow workers. The Company totally rejects the
Union statement that the worker (because of his Union
membership) was treated any differently to other workers. He
was allocated the same type of work and had the same
conditions of employment as the rest of the workforce. In
September he began arriving late to a degree worse than that
which had resulted in his previous dismissal. Management felt
he was not interested in his work at the studio. He was given
a final warning both by the Company and by his Union
representative. His lates continued and he was dismissed.
2. It is the opinion of the Company that the worker concerned
was a bad influence on other workers, encouraging them to
think that lateness and bad behaviour would be tolerated by
Management. This opinion is supported by the fact that the
unacceptable lateness of the third probationary employee
improved dramatically in the weeks following the dismissal of
the worker concerned. The third worker has adopted a helpful
and constructive attitude and was recently recommended for a
pay rise by his supervisors. The Company offered the same
opportunity to all probationary employees and is not prepared
to waste more time and money on the worker concerned. The
Company is convinced that the studio functions better without
him.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Taking into account the previous recommendation of a Rights
Commissioner the Court is of the view that, on the basis of the
claimants attendance record subsequent to re-instatement, the
Company did not act unfairly.
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.