Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89313 Case Number: LCR12477 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROCHES STORES (LIMERICK) LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
The reinstatement of a dismissed worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the
Court does not find grounds to recommend the re-employment of the
claimant.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89313 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12477
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROCHES STORES (LIMERICK) LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The reinstatement of a dismissed worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned with this claim was employed with the
company for ten years. During that time he had a bad attendance
and sick leave record. In August 1988, the company advised the
worker that in future he was required to attend the company doctor
for medical certification when absent due to illness. In January
1989, the worker was absent on sick leave (certified by own
doctor) for three days. He returned to work on 18th January, 1989
and reported to the company manager. A meeting took place that
morning between the worker and manager. Some reference was made
to the worker's absence and the nature of his medical
certification. A short time after the meeting the worker clocked
out his card and left the company premises. He contacted his shop
steward the next day to discuss resuming work but some days later
the company manager advised the worker that he had terminated his
own employment. The company at a meeting on 2nd February 1989,
attended by the worker and union representatives, maintained its
position - the worker was not dismissed - he left of his own free
will. A Labour Court conciliation conference was held on 15th
March, 1989. No agreement was reached and the union requested a
full Labour Court hearing. The company agreed and the Court
investigated the dispute in Limerick on 11th July, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's only wrong doing was clocking out without
permission to go home, but not to leave his job. It was a
human error of an individual under pressure and at breaking
point - an individual who also has domestic and personal
problems. The worker now understands the importance of his
job to himself and his family. The period since 18th January
should be treated as suspension.
3. 2. There is no agreement with the company in relation to
any member not being allowed back to work without seeing the
company doctor (details of Sick Pay Agreement supplied). The
worker was on stage 11 - first written warning of the
Procedural Agreement (details supplied). If the correct
handling of the disciplinary procedure was followed, the
warning would have been eliminated and the worker would not
have been forced to accept the company doctor's decision in
relation to medical certification. He would then have been
allowed to resume work on 18th January without any problems.
3. The worker has had a long service with the company and
has limited chances of getting alternative employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company did not dismiss the worker. He left the
employment of his own free will. It was accepted by the Union
at the meeting on 2nd February, that the worker had left his
employment of his own free will. Accordingly, no dismissal
took place.
2. The company's decision not to re-employ the worker is
reasonable for the following reasons:-
(A) There is a strict company policy of not
re-employing staff who have left the company.
(B) The worker had a very unsatisfactory employment
record with the company (details supplied).
(C) The worker had received a written warning regarding
absences on 4th August, 1988. This clearly stated
that the next stage would be a final written
warning (details supplied).
(D) The worker was an experienced staff representative,
who had been a member of the House Committee during
previous years and had negotiated with the manager
on several occasions. The company, therefore, do
not accept that he acted hastily or was put under
pressure. Following his meeting with the manager
on 18th January he would have understood that the
company was likely to proceed to a final written
warning. The company manager had clearly indicated
this to the shop steward on Tuesday 17th January
when he advised him that he intended speaking to
the worker on his return to work on 18th January,
1989.
(E) The worker had received many written warnings over
the years (details supplied) because of his severe
absence problems and record. Therefore he was well
used to having meetings with the company manager.
The meeting on 18th January was a routine-one of
any employee returning from an absence.
(F) The manner of the worker's leaving was typical of
previous episodes of behaviour as shown in his
attitude to his absenteeism and total disregard of
all warnings.
3. The company's decision not to re-employ the worker was fair
and reasonable based both on existing company policy and the
worker's previous employment record with the company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the
Court does not find grounds to recommend the re-employment of the
claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st July, 1989 ----------------
A. McG/U.S. Chairman