Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89560 Case Number: LCR12576 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NEPTUNE FREIGHT LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made, the Court, while
acknowledging that the worker was still on probation, recommends
that the Company in accordance with its own grievance procedure
should arrange that the worker meet the Managing Director to
investigate the reasons for his dismissal, which on the basis of
the information given to the Court, appear insubstantial.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89560 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12576
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: NEPTUNE FREIGHT LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a driver from
September, 1988 to February, 1989. He had previously worked for
the Company on a casual basis. His work involved making
deliveries in the Dublin area, around the country and in the U.K.
His net pay amounted to an average of approximately #160 per week.
3. On Friday 10th February the worker was engaged in delivering
goods in the Dublin area. The delivery dockets were arranged in
such a way that the last delivery would have been in Killiney.
There were no instructions given to follow a particular route.
The worker adopted a different route and his last delivery was in
Blackrock. At 4.30 p.m., having completed his deliveries, he
telephoned a Company Director for further instructions stating
that he was phoning from Killiney when in fact, he was not. The
worker states that he merely intended to indicate that he had
completed his deliveries. When he returned to the office the
Director asked him for his recent tachographs. He stated that he
had mislaid them. He was again asked for them on Monday 13th and
the matter of the telephone conversation was raised. The worker
was suspended for one week with pay and on 17th February, he was
dismissed. The worker states that when he asked for a reason for
his dismissal, the Director raised the question of a trip to
Donegal, indicating that the worker had used more diesel than was
required for the trip. The worker subsequently found the
tachographs and telephoned the Company Director and asked him,
without success, to reconsider his decision.
4. The worker sought a Rights Commissioners investigation but the
Company was not agreeable. On 11th July, 1989, the worker sought
a Labour Court hearing under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The hearing took place on 15th September, 1989.
The Company submitted a statement but was not represented at the
hearing. (The details at paragraph 3 above were supplied by the
worker and were not affirmed or denied by the Company).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker considers his dismissal to be unfair. He is
seeking reinstatement in his job on the same terms and
conditions as previously existed.
2. In stating that he was in Killiney, the worker merely
intended to indicate that he had completed his deliveries. No
specific instructions were given to him as to what route he
was to adopt.
3. The worker did not misappropriate any diesel fuel. His
employers had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that he
had. He was given no reasonable opportunity to deal with this
allegation. On the day it was raised (17th February) the
Director had already decided to dismiss him, before the
meeting.
4. The worker found the mislaid tachographs and rang his
employers to indicate this and seek reinstatement. (The
worker supplied the Court with copies of the tachographs for
the Donegal trip).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It was clearly explained to the worker when he took up
employment that he would be on probation for the first six
months of his employment and if at any time during that period
it was felt that he was not suitable, that he would be given
one week's notice. The worker agreed to this and signed a
contract which contained the following clause:-
"Probation:
Your employment will be probationary for the first six
months. The probationary period may be extended at the
Company's discretion, but will not, in any case, exceed 12
months. Termination of this agreement within the
probationary period shall be at the discretion of the
Company."
(A copy of the contract was supplied to the Court).
2. The worker's employment was terminated by the Company
within the six months probationary period allowed for in the
contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made, the Court, while
acknowledging that the worker was still on probation, recommends
that the Company in accordance with its own grievance procedure
should arrange that the worker meet the Managing Director to
investigate the reasons for his dismissal, which on the basis of
the information given to the Court, appear insubstantial.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
27th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.