Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9012 Case Number: LCR12742 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ADELPHI CARLTON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions and the view of
the Company and Union representatives. In all the circumstances
the Court does not consider the action taken by the Company in
dismissing the worker to have been unfair and accordingly does not
concede the claim of the Union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9012 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12742
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 commenced employment in the Company as a
part-time usher/cleaner on 30th July, 1982. In April, 1983 he was
appointed to a permanent part-time post and on 31st March, 1989 he
was appointed as a temporary full-time usher. Prior to 15th
November, 1989, the day of the Ireland/Malta match, the worker
requested the day off, which was refused. According to the
Company the worker also asked for time off, and was advised that,
if he took the day off or reported for work late without
permission, he would lose a days pay. On 15th November, 1989 the
worker did not report for work at 3.00 p.m. as required. The
worker reported for work at 3.20/3.30 p.m. and was told to report
to the duty manager. The duty manager informed the worker that
his conduct was unacceptable, that he had been seen in a public
house prior to coming on duty and therefore he would be sent home
and a day's pay would be deducted. On his way out, the worker
confronted the assistant chief usher and verbally abused him, for
reporting him late. The duty manager reported this incident to
the general manager. On 16th November, 1989 the worker was
suspended with pay pending a full investigation of the incident by
the Company. On 27th November, 1989 a local level meeting took
place concerning the suspension. At a further meeting held on
28th November, 1989, management informed the worker that he had
been found guilty of insubordination and abusive language to his
supervisor and also that this was a culmination of many previous
breaches of discipline by the worker, and that he was being
dismissed in accordance with clause 18 of the Company/Union
agreement (this was confirmed in writing on 30th November, 1989).
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. The Union position was that the punishment
of dismissal was too severe in the circumstances, however
management felt that dismissal was fair and reasonable. On 4th
January, 1990 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 25th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This case is one of extraordinary coincidence and
contradiction. From the time the worker commenced employment
with the Company he has been assessed by management on two
occasions and promoted, the last of which occurred only eight
months prior to his dismissal. In addition, on 5th October,
1989 two months before his dismissal the worker was given a
reference by his manager, yet his letter of dismissal refers
to a "continuous breach of good conduct standards," (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The incident on the day in question does merit
disciplinary action, but the circumstances were such that if
the same had been applied throughout industry on that day,
half of Ireland would be sacked. The worker has given a
written apology to his supervisor which has been accepted by
him. While the Union and indeed the worker, would not seek to
excuse any verbal exchange with a supervisor, the punishment
of dismissal is too severe. This should be commuted to a
written warning with compensation paid for any losses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed because of gross insubordination,
as he verbally abused the assistant chief usher in a public
area of the cinema in the presence of other staff, contrary to
clause 18 of the Company/Union agreement. Also, the worker
was late for duty without permission or sufficient cause,
despite being warned beforehand to be in work on time. The
employment relationship between the worker and the Company had
irrevocably broken down and he had previously received
warnings about his conduct and performance (details supplied
to the Court).
2. The Company carried out a full investigation into this
case and the worker was given every opportunity to be
represented, to state his case and to put forward any
arguments. The worker's dismissal was carried out in
accordance with the procedures laid down in the Company/Union
agreement. The Company has at all times striven to improve
the worker's performance and conduct. Immediately after being
suspended by the duty manager the worker recklessly compounded
his earlier offence by verbally assaulting the assistant chief
usher. It is the Company's duty to protect its supervisors
and workers from verbal assault and in all the circumstances,
the dismissal of this worker was fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions and the view of
the Company and Union representatives. In all the circumstances
the Court does not consider the action taken by the Company in
dismissing the worker to have been unfair and accordingly does not
concede the claim of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
7th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.