Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91136 Case Number: AD9130 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 386/90 concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Company has suffered seriously in the past in relation to
such malpractices in the catering area and about sixteen
employees had lost their jobs as a result.
The claimant is not so guilty, but he cannot be absolved for
his serious lapse on the occasion. The claimant was well
over a year in the service and was aware of the importance of
the regulations.
On the basis of a serious breach of the regulations I have to
find that the claimant was fairly dismissed for causes shown.
The claimant was under considerable pressure on the special
train and this was obviously a contributory factor.
In order that his future career is not adversely affected, I
recommend that he accepts the Company offer to resign as an
alternative to dismissal.
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 21st March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is innocent of the charges made
against him. He issued receipts for all purchases made by
passengers on the return journey from Cork. If the
complainants did not get receipts they should have identified
themselves and asked what was wrong. There are serious
doubts and weaknesses in the evidence supplied by the
Company.
2. The train was packed and the worker was under pressure
to cater for the requirements of the passengers. He was
unable to get through to all the carriages and so his takings
were low. In these circumstances it would not be impossible
for the worker to have issued receipts which were misplaced.
3. Prior to the charges relating to the incident on
1st July, 1990 the worker concerned had a very satisfactory
record. There is no solid evidence that the worker did
anything wrong. It is deplorable that he was dismissed
purely on the limited evidence available to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company considers it important that the integrity of
its disciplinary procedures, which have been agreed with the
trade unions, should be upheld. The worker concerned has
been dealt with fully in accordance with agreed disciplinary
procedures and submissions made on his behalf were taken
fully into account. The outcome of the disciplinary
procedures should stand.
2. The worker concerned was aware on 1st July, 1990 that it
is a fundamental principle that receipts must be issued in
respect of all food sales. Two passengers on the train on
that date observed the worker receiving cash for food items
for which he did not issue receipts and subsequently made
written statements to that effect. Following an
investigation by the Company the matter was processed through
the internal disciplinary procedures.
3. It is vital that the Company/employee trust relationship
is fully maintained, particularly where cash transactions are
involved. This relationship was broken when the worker
breached the regulations in relation to the issue of
receipts. In those circumstances the Company had to
terminate his employment.
DECISION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that from the commencement of his employment with
the Company to the date of the incident the worker's record was
good.
The Court concurs however with the finding of the Rights
Commissioner that the regulations were breached and that
accordingly the claimant was fairly dismissed.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds to alter the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and accordingly rejects
the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91136 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3091
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 386/90 concerning the dismissal of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a general assistant in
the catering services department, Heuston Station. On the 1st July
1990 he was a member of the catering crew on duty on the 9 a.m.
special train from Heuston Station to Cork. On the return journey
from Cork he operated a trolley catering service on the train. He
sold items such as tea, coffee, sandwiches etc and served
customers as he moved through the train. It is the Company's
policy that receipts for cash purchases should be issued at all
times. The worker was provided with an almex machine for this
purpose. Following complaints from two passengers that the worker
had breached the Company's regulations while operating the trolley
on 1st July, 1990, the worker was suspended with pay from 16th
July, 1990 pending investigation of the complaints. On 26th July,
1990 the worker was formally charged in writing with failing to
issue receipts for food items while operating the food trolley on
1st July, 1990 (details supplied to the Court). A disciplinary
hearing was held on 31st July, 1990. On 7th August, 1990 the
worker was advised in writing of the outcome of the hearing i.e.
found guilty with the penalty of dismissal imposed. An appeal
hearing was held on 26th September, 1990 which upheld the guilty
decision and the worker was advised accordingly in writing on 5th
October, 1990. The worker was also advised that he could make an
ad misericordium appeal (this was not done). The Union claims
that the worker is innocent of the charges made against him and
was unfairly dismissed. The Company claims that the agreed
disciplinary procedures were properly utilised in this case. No
agreement was reached at local level negotiations and the Union
referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the matter on 7th January,
1991 and issued the following recommendation on 24th January,
1991:-
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company has suffered seriously in the past in relation to
such malpractices in the catering area and about sixteen
employees had lost their jobs as a result.
The claimant is not so guilty, but he cannot be absolved for
his serious lapse on the occasion. The claimant was well
over a year in the service and was aware of the importance of
the regulations.
On the basis of a serious breach of the regulations I have to
find that the claimant was fairly dismissed for causes shown.
The claimant was under considerable pressure on the special
train and this was obviously a contributory factor.
In order that his future career is not adversely affected, I
recommend that he accepts the Company offer to resign as an
alternative to dismissal.
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 21st March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is innocent of the charges made
against him. He issued receipts for all purchases made by
passengers on the return journey from Cork. If the
complainants did not get receipts they should have identified
themselves and asked what was wrong. There are serious
doubts and weaknesses in the evidence supplied by the
Company.
2. The train was packed and the worker was under pressure
to cater for the requirements of the passengers. He was
unable to get through to all the carriages and so his takings
were low. In these circumstances it would not be impossible
for the worker to have issued receipts which were misplaced.
3. Prior to the charges relating to the incident on
1st July, 1990 the worker concerned had a very satisfactory
record. There is no solid evidence that the worker did
anything wrong. It is deplorable that he was dismissed
purely on the limited evidence available to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company considers it important that the integrity of
its disciplinary procedures, which have been agreed with the
trade unions, should be upheld. The worker concerned has
been dealt with fully in accordance with agreed disciplinary
procedures and submissions made on his behalf were taken
fully into account. The outcome of the disciplinary
procedures should stand.
2. The worker concerned was aware on 1st July, 1990 that it
is a fundamental principle that receipts must be issued in
respect of all food sales. Two passengers on the train on
that date observed the worker receiving cash for food items
for which he did not issue receipts and subsequently made
written statements to that effect. Following an
investigation by the Company the matter was processed through
the internal disciplinary procedures.
3. It is vital that the Company/employee trust relationship
is fully maintained, particularly where cash transactions are
involved. This relationship was broken when the worker
breached the regulations in relation to the issue of
receipts. In those circumstances the Company had to
terminate his employment.
DECISION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that from the commencement of his employment with
the Company to the date of the incident the worker's record was
good.
The Court concurs however with the finding of the Rights
Commissioner that the regulations were breached and that
accordingly the claimant was fairly dismissed.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds to alter the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and accordingly rejects
the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th April, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman