Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88658 Case Number: LCR12195 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JOHN MILLER TRANSPORT LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of three lorry drivers over their alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
6. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Court is satisfied
that the Company did not act in an unreasonable manner. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88658 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: JOHN MILLER TRANSPORT LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of three lorry drivers over their
alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a Scottish owned Company which operates about
60 trucks out of Scotland. Because of its business in Ireland it
opened a depot in Mullingar.
3. On the 27th May, 1988 the three workers concerned were
dismissed following a complaint made by a harbour constable over
an incident which occurred at the Larne Terminal on the
evening/morning on 24th/25th May, 1988. The workers concerned had
service with the Company ranging from 7 to 11 months. The matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 4th August, 1988. As the Company declined an invitation to
attend a conciliation conference the Union referred the matter to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969. The workers
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing
was convened on the 29th of November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned, on the evening of 24th May, 1988,
dropped trailers at Larne for the night ferry and had to await
overnight to collect trailers from the morning ferry. They
met a Larne based driver employed by the same Company at 8.00
p.m. and went for a meal. Following the meal they went to a
nearby pub for a few drinks. At closing time they retired to
the restroom in the truck park where there were a number of
drivers from other companies. They were aware that the Larne
based driver had an exchange of words with a harbour
constable. At 12.30 a.m. they returned to their trucks to
spend the night sleeping. At 6.00 a.m. they arose and went
about collecting their trailers for delivery to various parts
of the country.
2. At different times on the 25th May, 1988 they returned to
the depot in Mullingar and were questioned individually by the
local manager about where they had spent the previous night.
Their replies were noted. The following day they were again
interviewed by the Manager and were informed that they were
being dismissed on the instructions of Mr. John Miller because
he had received a complaint from the harbour police concerning
the conduct of one of his drivers.
3. The workers consider their dismissal to be unfair as none
of them were involved in any incident with the harbour police.
They were not given any details of the incident hence they
could not put forward a defence.
4. The workers had given good and loyal service and had no
disciplinary record against them.
5. The workers were not on duty at the time of the alleged
incident. It was also well known at Company head office that
the drivers used this particular pub because during the ferry
strike the Company rang the pub looking for any John Miller
driver. The Court is asked to recommend that the workers were
wrongfully dismissed and that the Company should meet the
Union to discuss the Court's recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company received a complaint at its head office in
Scotland on the 25th May, 1988 at 3.20 a.m. from a Larne
harbour constable. He complained that he had found 4 of the
Company's workers behaving in a drunk and disorderly manner in
the passenger terminal at 3.20 a.m. They were consuming
alcohol and creating a lot of noise. They refused to return
to their trucks when requested and verbally abused the officer
concerned. They also refused to give their names when
requested. At this stage the constable noted the trucks
registrations and contacted the Company's head office, as a
result of which the drivers were identified.
2. The facility of parking vehicles in the Larne terminal has
now been removed from our other drivers resulting in them
having to park their vehicles in nearby lay-bys with the
attendant dangers inherent in parking vehicles out in the open
in Larne. This facility was only extended to us by virtue of
the goodwill of the police officers on duty and drinking or
rowdy conduct was strictly forbidden within the confines of
the terminal. This was within the knowledge of the four
employees in question notwithstanding which they blatantly
violated the privilege granted to them.
3. The harbour police have similar status to officers of the
R.U.C. and to treat a law inforcement officer in the manner
which the ex-employees did on the occasion in question was
against all Company policy and not in keeping with the status
of the Company as a well established and reputable Company in
the haulage business.
4. The Company had to take cognizances of the fact that the
gentlemen in question were in such a state at 3.00 a.m. on the
morning in question as to attract the attention of the harbour
police to such an extent that he felt obliged to lodge an
immediate complaint to the Company's head office. This would
give rise to the reasonable assumption that they would not
have been in a proper state to drive a 32 ton 15 metre
articulated truck at 7.00 a.m. on the same morning. Both the
value of the trucks and cargo necessitate that the people
operating the trucks behave in a totally responsible manner at
all times both in the interests of properly operating the
vehicle, the reputation of the Company and the safety of the
general public. It was clear that neither of the three
applicants in this case nor the other ex-employee fulfilled
any of these requirements on the night in question.
5. The record of the Company in the haulage business is
exemplary and these standards must be maintained in the
interest of maintaining the Company's service level,
confidence of their customers and therefore maintaining jobs.
Such conduct by employees was totally unacceptable in the
circumstances. The Company considered that the employees'
conduct in this instance warranted dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Court is satisfied
that the Company did not act in an unreasonable manner. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
12th January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.