Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9011 Case Number: LCR12733 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ADELPHI CARLTON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having given consideration to the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that the Company had reasonable
grounds for the dismissal of the worker concerned and recommends
the Company's decision be upheld.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9011 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12733
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ADELPHI CARLTON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as an usher/cleaner from 1st
May, 1983 and was dismissed on 28th November, 1989. On 26th
September, 1989 management received a complaint from a woman that
her son and two other youths gained admission to the Cinema on
25th September, 1989 by giving money (eight pounds) directly to an
usher. The duty manager interviewed the three ushers who were on
duty on 25th September, 1989, all three denied any knowledge of
the incident. On 29th September, 1989 management interviewed two
of the patrons involved, who gave descriptions of the usher to
whom they had paid the money. On 5th October, 1989 management
informed the Gardai of the complaint. On 3rd November, 1989 a
Gardai identity parade was arranged at which the patron who had
made the complaint identified the worker concerned. (Subsequently
the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to take any action
against the worker). On 7th November, 1989 a local level meeting
took place and the worker was suspended by the Company pending
further investigations. On 22nd November, 1989 the worker made a
statement to the Gardai stating that he was not involved in this
incident. On 23rd November, 1989 the General Manager again
interviewed the patron who had made the complaint and took a
written statement from him. On 27th November, 1989 a further
meeting between Union and management took place and on 28th
November, 1989 at a meeting the worker was informed by management
that he was being dismissed in accordance with Clause 18 of the
Company/Union agreement. (This was subsequently confirmed in
writing on 30th November, 1989). On 1st December, 1989 a general
meeting of staff took place and a motion supporting the worker
concerned and deciding to refer the matter to the Labour Court in
accordance with Clause 15(c) of the Company/Union agreement was
passed. On 4th December, 1989 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 8th December, 1989 at which no progress was
made and on 4th January, 1990, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 25th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's view, unanimously endorsed by the staff
of the Cinema, and the Section Committee representing Dublin
Cinema and Theatre workers, that if the employment of a person
in the industry can be terminated after eight years service
due to the unsubstantiated allegation of a 'minor' then the
employment of everyone is in question. The worker's record
during his period of employment has been perfect.
2. The Company has taken weeks, with the worker out of his
job, to try and find evidence to make this allegation stick,
however they found nothing. The worker's future career is non
existent and his reputation has been destroyed. The worker's
employment has been terminated following the most serious of
complaints from one of allegedly three patrons, whereas
nowhere in any advanced society should such evidence as was
put forward be admissible. The Court should recommend that
the worker return to his job with full compensation for all
losses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. The worker was dismissed because he was found to be in breach
of the procedures relating to the admission of patrons to the
Cinema. The Company has lost all confidence and trust in the
worker as he improperly used his official position for his own
private advantage. The worker's failure to carry out his his
contractual obligations resulted in losses being suffered by
the Company. The Company has a duty to protect its revenue
and this dismissal was fair and reasonable in all the
circumstances.
2. The General Manager conducted a full and diligent
investigation of all the relevant circumstances. In the
course of this he interviewed all the parties concerned and
ensured that no evidence was ignored. The worker was given
every opportunity to state his case and to be represented by
his Union. After conducting his full and careful
investigation the General Manager formed the reasonable belief
that the patron who made the complaint had attended the Cinema
on 25th September, 1989 and that eight pounds had been taken
from him without authorisation and contrary to the accepted
admission procedures, by this worker. The General Manager
also concluded that in the circumstances and in accordance
with the Company/Union agreement the appropriate penalty was
dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having given consideration to the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that the Company had reasonable
grounds for the dismissal of the worker concerned and recommends
the Company's decision be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
2nd February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.