Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89238 Case Number: LCR12423 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FORDAMERY ENTERPRISES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the evidence submitted by the
parties is of the view that the appellant was not fairly treated.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company pay him a sum of
#1,000 and issue him with a reference.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89238 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12423
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: FORDAMERY ENTERPRISES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute commenced work with the
Company on November 19, 1987. He was employed to press blouses
and skirts in the factory. On 31st May, 1988 the manager of the
factory discovered that 6 blouses, part of an order of 206
garments, were missing. The manager and a supervisor enquired
from the individual operatives if they had seen the garments, but
were unsuccessful in tracing them. After closing time, the
manager and the supervisor looked around the factory, and found
the garments under the worker's bench. The garments were in a
bag, and seemed to have been deliberately concealed. The
following morning the manager confronted the worker about the
garments, who denied any knowledge of them. The manager did not
believe the worker, and dismissed him forthwith. The worker
appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the terms of the
Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, as he did not
have sufficient service with the Company to take a case under the
Unfair Dismissals Act.
The Tribunal decided to award the worker the sum of #156.00, the
equivalent of his gross weekly wage and his entitlement under the
Act.
On 22nd March, 1989 the worker, through his representative,
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. He was seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. The
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 27th April, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the manager enquired about missing blouses on 31st
May, 1988 he was initially looking for 30-40 blouses. Since
it was impossible for that number to be at the worker's desk,
he did not make a thorough check.
2. When confronted with the six blouses on the following
morning the worker was totally taken aback. There was no
reason for him to try to take them, as they were already
available to the worker at greatly reduced cost. The manager
totally ignored the fact that since the worker was not at his
work bench all day, there was ample opportunity for somebody
else to have put the blouses there. It was accepted that
individuals would bring in their own clothes to have them
pressed at lunch time.
3. The worker had been involved in an argument with another
individual at his workplace. Therefore there was a
possibility of his having been "set-up." The manager did not
adequately investigate this possibility, and the treatment
received by the worker was contrary to natural justice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was quite obvious from the position that the missing
garments were found in, that they had been deliberately hidden
with a view to removal at a later time. The garments were
found underneath the workers bench. He was customarily first
in every morning. It is the practice for the workers to have
their lunch on the premises, at a position very close to their
work bench. It is the manager's view that the garments could
only have been placed in the position they were found by the
worker. At the very least, the worker would have had to know
of the fact that they were hidden. In all the circumstances
the manager had no option but to dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the evidence submitted by the
parties is of the view that the appellant was not fairly treated.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company pay him a sum of
#1,000 and issue him with a reference.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
30th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.