Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89751 Case Number: LCR12675 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TOP SECURITY LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, on the basis of the submission made by the worker
concerned, is of the opinion that he was unfairly dismissed. The
Court, therefore, recommends that he be paid one weeks pay in lieu
of notice as per Registered Agreement for the industry, together
with one months payment at the same rates, as compensation for the
loss of employment, plus an appropriate reference of good conduct.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89751 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12675
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TOP SECURITY LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company from 7th May,
1989, to 13th September, 1989. Initially he operated as a static
guard in a number of locations, however, from June, 1989, till the
termination of his employment he worked as a "watchman" in the
Irish Press. On the night of 13th September, 1989, at 1.50 a.m. a
patrol driver and a supervisor arrived at the worker's home to
inform him that he was being dismissed for leaving his post at
12.20 a.m. that day, i.e. 10 minutes early. When he spoke to the
Manager at the base the next morning he was again informed he was
being dismissed. He was also informed that all his statutory
entitlements would be forwarded to him. This has not occurred,
nor has the worker received any form of reference from the
Company. The worker referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation, however, the Company declined to attend a
Rights Commissioner's hearing. On 26th October, 1989, the matter
was referred by the worker, to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's investigation of the dispute on
30th November, 1989, the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Company was not represented at the Court's
investigation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned believes that he was unfairly
dismissed because he attempted to do his job properly and this
led to difficulties with other staff employed by the Company.
One of his duties as watchman was to distribute a certain
number of free newspapers to any Gardai and Firemen who might
call, however, a number of the Company's patrol drivers would
usually call looking for free newspapers. Often he was unable
to oblige them as his supply might be used up. This appeared
to annoy the patrol drivers. When the worker complained about
the patrol drivers demanding papers, the Company put a stop to
the practice. This seemed to annoy the patrol drivers further
and as a result his lift home following the end of his shift
was continually late.
2. Another incident relating to the distribution of
newspapers occurred when his supply of newspapers never
arrived. It was subsequently discovered that they had in fact
been delivered to the watchman's office but somebody then
moved them to another office. Nobody seemed to know how this
occurred. The worker contends that somebody may have done
this in order to cause trouble between himself and the
Company.
3. The Company dismissed the worker on the grounds that he
left his post early on the 13th September, 1989. The worker
left the premises in the Company of an Irish Press employee
who vouches that the time was 12.35 a.m.
4. The worker has not received any of his statutory
entitlements, even though these were promised by the Company.
The worker also believes that he should receive a reference
from the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court, on the basis of the submission made by the worker
concerned, is of the opinion that he was unfairly dismissed. The
Court, therefore, recommends that he be paid one weeks pay in lieu
of notice as per Registered Agreement for the industry, together
with one months payment at the same rates, as compensation for the
loss of employment, plus an appropriate reference of good conduct.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
11th December, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.