Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90115 Case Number: LCR12846 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SCAFFORM LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union of the unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the worker be paid a sum equivalent to two
weeks pay in full settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90115 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12846
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SCAFFORM LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union of the unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the erection and dismantling of
scaffolding on construction sites and employs scaffolders,
scaffolders helpers and general operatives. The worker concerned
commenced employment with the Company on 15th August, 1989 (he had
been employed on occasions prior to this on a casual basis).
Initially he worked as a general operative loading and unloading
scaffolding components and when this work decreased, as a
scaffolders helper. On Friday 8th December, 1989 the worker's
employment with the Company finished, following a telephone
conversation with the Contracts Manager on the previous Monday
(4th December, 1989). This telephone conversation arose from the
fact that the worker and the scaffolder with whom he worked had
left the site early the previous Friday. The Company's position
is that in the course of the telephone conversation the worker's
employment was terminated virtually by mutual consent due to his
unsuitability for the work. The Union's position is that during
the telephone conversation the Contracts Manager asked the worker
how he would feel about finishing work that Friday and that
although the worker disputed this dismissal no satisfactory
explanation was or has been given by the Company. On 12th
January, 1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 30th
January, 1990 at which no progress was made and on 20th March,
1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 26th
April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had completed all the work he could do on the
Friday. On Monday 4th December, 1989 the worker was told to
ring the Contracts Manager who asked the worker how he would
feel about finishing up work the following Friday. The worker
contested this dismissal and asked for an explanation which he
did not receive. To date the Company has given no
satisfactory explanations for the worker's dismissal.
2. The worker has been employed by this Company on a number
of occasions and each time has been sent for by the Contracts
Manager, who on this occasion has now decided for some reason
that the worker is unsuitable. The Union has spoken to a
number of the worker's colleagues all of whom speak most
highly of his work performance and his attitude to work. The
worker has been treated in a very mean and shabby manner by
his employer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the time of this worker's employment as a scaffolders
helper things started to go wrong. For one reason or another
he appeared to have a negative effect on the scaffolders
employed by the Company, he displayed an inability to work as
part of a team and was unwilling to conform to the Company's
operating methods. It became obvious to management that the
worker was not suited to the Company's needs and that
something would have to be done.
2. Before any action could be taken matters came to a head.
On the Monday when the Contracts Manager asked the worker why
he had left work early on the previous Friday, he replied to
the effect that he could not work unaccompanied. When the
worker was told that there was no reason why he could not have
worked alone, the worker became extremely abusive. Finally,
the Contracts Manager told the worker that he seemed to have
no interest in his work and that his attitude was deplorable
and asked the worker if it would not be wiser in the
circumstances if he left. The worker told the Contracts
Manager what he could do with the job and he was then told to
finish up at the end of the week. It is the Company's
contention that the worker's employment terminated virtually
by mutual consent due to his unsuitability for the work he was
required to do. As the worker had relatively short service,
it is not unreasonable that the Company be allowed some
discretion in the matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the worker be paid a sum equivalent to two
weeks pay in full settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
14th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.