Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88709 Case Number: LCR12213 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the County Council, in
having regard to the record of the employee and the reasons put
forward by him over a considerable period of time for the
accumulation of that record, did not act unfairly in dismissing
him. The Court therefore rejects the claim of unfair dismissal.
The foregoing conclusion by the Court is influenced by the
principle that an employer, faced with valid reasons for
dismissal, will not be considered as acting unfairly, even if
later it transpires that hitherto unknown or undisclosed factors
influenced the employees behaviour.
The Court makes the above comments in view of the contents of some
of the allegations made by the claimant in relation to his
behaviour which subsequently led to his dismissal. While the
allegations were refuted by the County Council, it did appear to
the Court that there was an element of validity attached to some
of them. It is accepted by the Court that the County Council had
no specific knowledge of the allegations prior to the hearing.
However, the Court is of the view that the claimant did, through a
series of heretofore undisclosed incidents, find himself in a
position wherein he found it difficult to comply with the terms of
his employment.
On this basis, and without prejudice to the finding that the
claimant was not unfairly dismissed, the Court recommends that the
County Council give serious consideration to the possibility of
offering the claimant some form of alternative employment on a
trial basis for a period of six months. Employment beyond this
period, if available, to be subject to an acceptable performance
and attendance during the trial period.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88709 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12213
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Council as a general operative
in the Road Maintenance Section from 18th May, 1978 to 24th June,
1987. From 1982 on the worker was issued with written and final
warnings and notices of termination of employment due to his
unsatisfactory attendance record (details supplied to the Court).
The Council lifted the dismissal notices on a number of occasions
following meetings between the Council and the Union on the
matter. However, as the worker's attendance record continued to
be unsatisfactory on 11th June, 1987 he was issued with a notice
of termination of employment and was dismissed with effect from
24th June, 1987. The worker subsequently referred the matter to
the Rights Commissioner's Service but the Council refused to
attend and on 7th September, 1988 the worker referred the matter
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the
recommendation of the Court. The Court investigated the dispute
on 15th December, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's attendance record was poor due to the fact
that from the time he took up employment with the Council he
was harassed and abused by the other workers and therefore
forced to endure intolerable working conditions (details
supplied to the Court). Due to this situation the worker
became ill and also due to the stress involved was unable to
cope with day to day work. At the meetings held with the
Council the worker only referred to his domestic problems as
he was apprehensive about mentioning these conditions due to
the possible consequences.
2. The dismissal was unfair as the Council did not understand
the full reasons for the worker's poor attendance record. Due
to the fact that the worker was dismissed by the Council he
has received no income for the last year and as he received no
reference from the Council to account for the ten years he
worked with them, the worker has no opportunity of obtaining
alternative employment.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was issued with numerous written warnings.
From 1983 on the worker was fully aware of the severity of the
situation and this was again emphasised to him at the meetings
held with the worker and the Union in 1984, 1985 and 1986. In
spite of this the worker made little or no effort to improve
his attendance (details supplied to the Court). The Council
dealt with the worker compassionately and give him every
opportunity to improve before imposing the ultimate sanction
of dismissal.
2. Other workers with similarly poor attendance records have
had their employment terminated by the Council, which penalty
is in line with the Council's agreed procedure on absenteeism
control. The Council dealt very leniently with this worker
but finally had no option but to dismiss the worker due to the
fact that all advisory and other disciplinary measures had
failed to have any effect. On an ex-gratia basis the worker
was refunded his superannuation contributions, given an extra
weeks pay above the statutory amounts in lieu of notice and no
deduction was made in respect of one week's holiday which the
worker had overtaken. In all the circumstances, the worker
was not unfairly dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the County Council, in
having regard to the record of the employee and the reasons put
forward by him over a considerable period of time for the
accumulation of that record, did not act unfairly in dismissing
him. The Court therefore rejects the claim of unfair dismissal.
The foregoing conclusion by the Court is influenced by the
principle that an employer, faced with valid reasons for
dismissal, will not be considered as acting unfairly, even if
later it transpires that hitherto unknown or undisclosed factors
influenced the employees behaviour.
The Court makes the above comments in view of the contents of some
of the allegations made by the claimant in relation to his
behaviour which subsequently led to his dismissal. While the
allegations were refuted by the County Council, it did appear to
the Court that there was an element of validity attached to some
of them. It is accepted by the Court that the County Council had
no specific knowledge of the allegations prior to the hearing.
However, the Court is of the view that the claimant did, through a
series of heretofore undisclosed incidents, find himself in a
position wherein he found it difficult to comply with the terms of
his employment.
On this basis, and without prejudice to the finding that the
claimant was not unfairly dismissed, the Court recommends that the
County Council give serious consideration to the possibility of
offering the claimant some form of alternative employment on a
trial basis for a period of six months. Employment beyond this
period, if available, to be subject to an acceptable performance
and attendance during the trial period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
13th January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.