Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89566 Case Number: LCR12589 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MODERN DISPLAY ARTISTS LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION |
Claim for the re-instatement of a dismissed worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having heard the submissions, it seems to the Court that the
normal employer/employee relationship of trust and confidence no
longer exists between the parties and has little if any prospect
of being re-instated. Accordingly the Court does not recommend
re-instatement of the claimant in his job but recommends that the
Company make him an ex-gratia severance payment of #7,000 in full
and final settlement of his claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89566 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MODERN DISPLAY ARTISTS LTD
(Represented by the Construction Industry Federation)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the re-instatement of a dismissed worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company is engaged in design and installation work for
exhibitions, conferences and shops. It is a small business
operating in a competitive market. The worker concerned with the
claim was employed as a general operative in the company's
Ringsend base since the mid 1970's. He was issued with a final
letter of warning on 15th March, 1989, following an incident at
work on 9th March, 1989, where he was involved in a row with a
supervisor. The supervisor and another worker are alleged to have
observed the claimant some distance from his base in Ringsend on
8th March when a clock card recorded him as being at work.
Following investigations into a company fire on 5th May 1989,
checks on staff attendance for that week revealed that the worker
concerned with the claim had clocked in at 8.09 a.m. and out at
8.28 a.m on 1st May, 1989. He allegedly, recorded his attendance
on a day card and claimed wages for the day. Management
subsequently advised the worker, in a letter dated 8th June, 1989,
that following the various incidents of the recent past, his
employment with the company would terminate on completion of the
project which he was working on. The worker was on the company's
payroll until week ending 4th August, 1989. He denied all
allegations leading to his dismissal. The dispute was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 15th May, 1989 but
due to the postal strike was not received until 8th June, 1989. A
conciliation conference was held on 28th July, 1989(company on
summer holidays in early July) and 4th August, 1989. No agreement
was reached and the union requested a full Court hearing on 10th
August, 1989. The company agreed on 22nd August, 1989 and the
Court investigated the dispute on 25th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker denies all allegations of mis-conduct. He
denies that he was out of the company premises at 12.45 p.m.
on 8th March, 1989 and the company have not produced evidence
to support this allegation. On 1st May, 1989 the worker
clocked out at 8.28 a.m. as he had to leave work due to a
family illness. He advised his supervisors that he was
leaving the company premises. The worker has no recollection
of filling in a day card for that day.
2. The company was not willing to listen to any reasonable
explanation put forward by the worker. It is wrong that he
was not given an opportunity to contest, through the normal
procedures, the letter of warning issued to him on 15th March,
1989. It took four months to arrange a conciliation
conference. In the meantime the company dismissed the worker.
3. The worker should be re-instated to his former position
and compensated for any loss of earnings since his dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The union did seek to have the final letter of warning
withdrawn but in view of all the circumstances of the worker's
behaviour the company were not prepared to do so.
2. The worker having clocked out at 8.28 a.m. on 1st May,
1989 claimed payment for a full day on a day card. He was
aware that his wages were computed on the day card and when
confronted with the matter admitted that it was a mistake.
3. The company had no alternative but to terminate the
employment of the worker as all trust and the relationship
necessary for his continued employment has been irretrievably
broken.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having heard the submissions, it seems to the Court that the
normal employer/employee relationship of trust and confidence no
longer exists between the parties and has little if any prospect
of being re-instated. Accordingly the Court does not recommend
re-instatement of the claimant in his job but recommends that the
Company make him an ex-gratia severance payment of #7,000 in full
and final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
6th October, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman