Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88751 Case Number: LCR12242 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HARCOURT PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that striking a fellow employee in the
circumstances described fully justified the Company's action in
dismissing him. The Court, therefore, does not recommend that the
dismissal be considered unfair in any degree.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88751 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12242
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: HARCOURT PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
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
December, 1987, to 29th July, 1988, as a van driver. On 27th
July, 1988, the Production Director arrived at the Company's
premises and was informed by the Trainee Production Manager of an
incident that had occurred earlier that morning between him and
the worker concerned, which culminated in him being struck in the
face by the worker concerned. The Production Director asked both
parties for a written statement regarding the incident. The
worker concerned was suspended, with pay on the same morning,
pending further investigation. During the course of the
investigation the Company interviewed 2 other employees who were
present at the time of the incident. On 28th July, 1988, the
worker concerned was again interviewed by the Production Director
and was offered the opportunity to revise his written statement.
He declined to do so. On 29th July, 1988, when the Production
Director had concluded his investigation and discussed the matter
with the Company's other Directors, the worker was informed that
the Company had decided to terminate his employment for reasons of
gross misconduct. The Company contends that after being so
informed and before leaving the Company's premises he was again
involved in another incident with the Trainee Production Manager,
during which he kicked the Trainee Production Manager in the
groin. The worker concerned felt that he had been unnecessarily
provoked and unfairly dismissed. The matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 26th September, 1988, under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and the worker agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was arranged for
4th November, 1988, however prior to the Court hearing the worker
informed the Court that he was unable to proceed with the case at
that stage. On 12th December the worker informed the Court that
he was in a position to proceed with the Court hearing and a
hearing was arranged for 6th January, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the morning of the incident in question the worker
concerned was occupied loading a van when the Trainee
Production Manager told him to do another job. The worker had
already been told he was to take his instructions from the
Directors only. The worker informed the Trainee Production
Manager that he was already occupied. The Trainee Production
Manager became angry and started mumbling and swearing under
his breath. The worker asked him to have the decency to speak
directly. The Trainee Production Manager continually refused
to do so and the worker slapped him in the face. He felt
provoked.
2. The Trainee Production Manager was not authorised to give
the worker any instructions. There had been a series of
events over a long period, culminating on that day.
3. The matter should not be treated as a gross misconduct.
If the matter was serious it would be normal to give a warning
or at most a period of suspension. Dismissal is very harsh
and unwarranted. It is not usual industrial relations
practice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Company policy to treat all workers in a fair and
just manner, however, the Company does expect common courtesy
and proper behaviour from its employees at all times. The
worker concerned committed an act of violence against another
member of the staff, which was perpetrated without due reason
and was entirely inexcusable.
2. The action taken against the worker was only taken after
careful consideration of all the information available to it
which included an admission of guilt by the worker concerned.
The Company's decision to dismiss him was vindicated by his
actions on 29th July, 1988. The worker should consider
himself fortunate that the Trainee Production Manager has not
chosen to pursue a civil action against him for assault.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that striking a fellow employee in the
circumstances described fully justified the Company's action in
dismissing him. The Court, therefore, does not recommend that the
dismissal be considered unfair in any degree.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
31st January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.