Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90451 Case Number: AD9059 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KING & CORRIGAN MOTORS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;MARY O'CONNOR AND COMPANY SOLICITORS |
Appeal by the worker against the Company's non implementation of Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 269/89 concerning dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made and heard the evidence
of several of the employees directly involved in the incident,
which was not available to the Rights Commissioner, the Court is
of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner was correct in his
assessment of the events which gave rise to the case.
The Court therefore takes the view that the Recommendation in the
light of the long delay since its issue and the additional costs
incurred in making the appeal should be amended to provide for the
payment of #850 and that the Recommendation so amended should
stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90451 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: KING & CORRIGAN MOTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MARY O'CONNOR AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against the Company's non implementation
of Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 269/89 concerning
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a
forecourt supervisor on the 20th January, 1989. He was dismissed
on the 13th October, 1989 for allegedly threatening another member
of staff. The worker denied issuing a threat and the dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation on the 23rd January, 1990. On the 13th February,
1990 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"Having given the most careful consideration to the very
substantial and comprehensive points made by both parties I
have come to the firm view that the worker was unfairly
dismissed from his employment on the date in question. I do
not, for obvious reasons, recommend either re-instatement or
re-engagement. My recommendation is that the worker be
compensated by King and Corrigan Motors to the extent of a
payment of #750.00 and that this be accepted by him in full
and final settlement of all claims on the Company in relation
to the termination of his employment."
The Worker accepted the recommendation.
The Company did not implement the recommendation. The worker
appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10th
August, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 19th November,
1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On Thursday 12th October, 1989 the worker concerned had a
disagreement with the Company's book-keeper in relation to a
matter connected with his income tax. The book-keeper advised
his Employer that the worker concerned had threatened him. In
a subsequent interview with the Employer the worker denied
ever threatening the book-keeper. The Employer advised the
worker concerned that if he admitted issuing the threat all
would be forgotten. The worker denied threatening the
book-keeper and stated that he could not admit that he had
done so. His employment was then terminated.
2. He had only one or two minor disagreements with the
book-keeper over his ten months period of employment, they got
on well together and the argument on the 12th October
concerned his emergency tax. This was the reason for his
going to see the book-keeper in the first instance.
3. The worker concerned never received a warning concerning
his dismissal, nor was he advised that he was not doing his
job properly nor had he had any dealings with his Employer
previously. He was given a cheque for #54 in lieu of notice
which he handed back. He had previously done a job for his
Employer for which he was never paid the agreed #50.
4. With regard to witnesses to the alleged incident, the
book-keeper has left the Company as have all the other
employees who were there at the time. The employee who had
been a forecourt supervisor before the worker concerned held
the post had been forced to leave the job as life was made so
difficult for him that he had no other option.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed after he threatened
physical violence against the Company's wages clerk. The
threat was extremely serious and of a personalised nature
against the other member of staff concerned.
2. The worker was confronted by the Company to explain his
actions but he completely denied the misconduct. The incident
however was clearly witnessed (details supplied to the Court)
and the worker concerned was dismissed.
3. The Company believes that the dismissal was the only
appropriate action in the light of the extremely serious
nature of the misconduct for which the worker concerned could
provide no reasonable explanation. His position was further
undermined by his failure to give a truthful account to his
Employer.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made and heard the evidence
of several of the employees directly involved in the incident,
which was not available to the Rights Commissioner, the Court is
of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner was correct in his
assessment of the events which gave rise to the case.
The Court therefore takes the view that the Recommendation in the
light of the long delay since its issue and the additional costs
incurred in making the appeal should be amended to provide for the
payment of #850 and that the Recommendation so amended should
stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
13th December, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.