Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89194 Case Number: LCR12391 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NOONAN'S CLEANING LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union for compensation for the dismissal of two workers, worker A and worker B.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that Worker A was not treated in a reasonable
manner and accordingly recommends payment of a sum of #700 as
compensation.
With regard to Worker B, taking into account the warnings issued,
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89194 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12391
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: NOONAN'S CLEANING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for the dismissal of two
workers, worker A and worker B.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the contract cleaning business, and
holds a number of cleaning contracts in the Galway area. Worker A
was employed by the Company on 15th August, 1984, and worked on a
number of contracts. Immediately prior to leaving the Company the
worker was employed as a site supervisor on a contract with one
particular client company. She normally worked 15 hours per week.
On Wednesday, 1st June, 1988 there was a meeting of supervisors
and Company management, including Mr. Noonan. At the end of this
meeting, worker A was asked to remain behind. There is a conflict
of evidence as to what transpired at this meeting. It is agreed
that the worker was asked to transfer to another contract. The
Company states that the reason for the transfer was that the
worker had an over friendly relationship with the client company,
at a time when it was reducing the staffing level on the contract.
The worker claims that the only reason given for the proposed
transfer was that she was "uncontrollable." The worker did not
accept the transfer nor the reason given for it. She claims she
was then dismissed. The Company contends that she left the
meeting of her own volition, refused to transfer, and terminated
her own employment. On 7th June, 1988 worker B, who had been
employed in the Company since 1986, was dismissed for refusing to
carry out instructions. Worker B is the son of worker A. The
Union does not deny that he refused to carry out instructions, but
insists that there were extenuating circumstances, and that the
Company took hasty action. On Thursday, June 2, 1988 worker A
received a letter which contained a cheque for four weeks pay. On
Friday June 3, 1988 she claims she was contacted by a senior
member of the client company wherein she had last worked as a
cleaner on behalf of Noonan's. She says that this person advised
her to take a case against the Company. As a result of this, she
and the other workers in the Company joined the Union. On the 8th
June, 1988, the Company was informed of this, and was asked to
re-instate worker A pending discussion, and also for a review in
writing of worker B's position. The F.U.E. replied on behalf of
the Company on the 10th June, 1988 stating:
(a) Worker A had resigned having refused to transfer.
(b) The transfer was in accordance with her contract of
employment.
(c) The transfer involved no alteration in her basic terms
and conditions.
The F.U.E. letter did not provide the review of worker B's case.
On 22nd July, a meeting took place between the Union and the
F.U.E., but the matter was not resolved. The Company declined to
attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing on the matter, and also
declined to have the matter dealt with by the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. On 24th February, the Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the
recommendation of the Court. A Court hearing took place in Galway
on 19th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS RE WORKER A:
3. 1. The Company claims that the proposed transfer of the
worker was in accordance with her conditions of employment.
These stated "The Company reserves the right to transfer you
to other contracts/locations should it be deemed necessary by
the Company." Had this been a simple transfer necessitated
solely by the work demands, then clearly it would have been
permissible. This transfer however, resulted solely from the
Company's dissatisfaction with the worker's attitude. It was
therefore a disciplinary matter which should bring different
rules and protections into play. The F.U.E. in their letter
of 10th June made no mention of any level of dissatisfaction
with the worker, but simply referred to her being asked to
transfer.
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a cleaning
supervisor. The proposed transfer was in effect a demotion,
as there was a reduction in status of the reporting structure
(details supplied to the Court). Had she accepted the
transfer it would have been an implicit acceptance of the
complaints against her, and would have left serious questions
unanswered regarding the "over friendliness."
3. The worker did not resign through any statement written or
verbal, at the meeting held on 1st June. She was placed in an
intolerable position which denied her basic rights. She was
faced with a hostile group of people, and had to answer very
serious allegations without being given an opportunity to
reply or having a witness present. The dismissal procedure in
the Company provides for:
(a) Full investigation.
(b) Statement of allegations against the person.
(c) Right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or trade
union official.
(d) Right of appeal.
Since the worker was faced with what was effectively a
disciplinary hearing she should have been afforded the same
rights. The way she was treated is contrary to both good
industrial relations practice, and natural justice.
4. The client company in which the worker was employed on the
cleaning contract is a manufacturer of health care equipment.
It has of necessity an extremely high requirement for
cleanliness. There is no evidence that the worker behaved
with impropriety in her relationship with the client company.
Apart from the unsustained allegation that she was too
friendly, there were no complaints about her ability to
perform her duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS RE WORKER A:
4. 1. Worker A held a responsible position in the Company
supervising 9 people and acting as the Company's main agent
with an important client. The relationship between the client
and the Company can be delicate at times of change and the
Company was not entirely happy with the way in which she dealt
with a proposed reduction in staffing levels on the contract
in question. With that in mind, and in accordance with normal
practice, the Company requested that she transfer to another
site. Such changes of supervisory staff occur regularly. The
change in question meant no diminution in status or pay, as
was explained to her at the time of the proposal. Indeed the
Company was very surprised at her attitude which was
completely unsatisfactory. By refusing to consider the change
and leaving the meeting under no illusion about the fact that
she was leaving, it is clear that she terminated her own
employment. She did not get in touch with the Company for
over two weeks.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS RE WORKER B:
5. 1. The Union does not deny that worker B on a number of
occasions refused to carry out instructions. There were
however extenuating circumstances which whilst not excusing
the refusals do indeed go someway to explaining why he took
the stand he did.
(a) The worker's mother had two days earlier been
dismissed in circumstances which were at least
doubtful. She had been described as "uncontrollable."
This needless to say had an effect on worker B's
appreciation of his employer.
(b) The worker felt that there was an unfair allocation of
the extra workload and though he stated this to
Management, no investigation took place.
(c) The extra work resulted from Management's desire to
increase profit by the introduction of "frequency"
cleaning and the reduction by one of the cleaning
staff.
(d) It was the view, not only of worker B but of many
other staff, that what was being sought was not
possible if one was to maintain the high standards
demanded by the client company. Prior to this
particular incident worker B's record had been good.
2. As a result of the dismissal worker B, who with his mother
were the only two people working in the family, has had to
emigrate and is currently living in England away from his
family. The Union considers that the fact that worker B was
the son of worker A may have influenced the Company's
thinking. It is perhaps true that an older person would have
been clever enough not to be caught out in a refusal, but in
these circumstances the reaction of an 18 year old to his
Mother's dismissal should have been given some consideration
of a positive nature by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS RE WORKER B:
6. 1. The Company's position is that it requires complete
flexibility amongst the cleaning staff on its contracts. This
was explained to worker B and was clearly understood by him.
It would not be possible to continue operating contracts
without this flexibility and the attitude of the worker was
incompatible with his remaining as an employee of the Company.
He was given two verbal and one written warning (details
supplied to the Court) and had more than adequate time to
withdraw from the course of action he embarked upon. The
Company does not believe that there was a viable alternative
to dismissal, and it asks the Court to support its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that Worker A was not treated in a reasonable
manner and accordingly recommends payment of a sum of #700 as
compensation.
With regard to Worker B, taking into account the warnings issued,
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
15th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.