Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90611 Case Number: LCR13189 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court is of the opinion that fraudulently claiming Social
Welfare Benefit - an offence admitted by the worker concerned - is
an offence warranting dismissal. Furthermore in this case the
worker concerned made no complaint as regards the procedure under
which he was dismissed.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90611 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Corporation
in 1979 as a general operative and was assigned to the Roads
Maintenance Section. In 1987 it was established that he was
claiming and receiving Social Welfare Disability Benefit for
various periods amounting to thirty nine days while working or on
paid annual leave. He was interviewed by the Corporation's
Personnel Department on the 30th August, 1988 concerning abuse of
the Social Welfare code. He did not dispute the fact that for
varying periods between 1984 and 1987 he claimed disability
benefit. The Corporation terminated his employment as from 30th
August, 1988. On the 11th October, 1990 the worker appealed
against his dismissal and requested that the issue be investigated
by a Rights Commissioner. The Corporation was not agreeable to
such an investigation. The worker then referred the dispute to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 25th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the nine years of his employment with the Corporation,
the worker concerned had a fairly good record regarding
attendance at work with the exception of one period from July,
1984 to May, 1985 when he was off work due to an injury.
2. He attended to his work with diligence and fidelity and
there was no occasion when disciplinary action was taken
against him.
3. When interviewed by the Personnel Department in August,
1988 the worker submitted that the reason he fraudalently
claimed Disability Benefit was lack of money.
4. Notwithstanding the fact, that what the worker did was
wrong, he is now seeking re-instatment in his job in the
Corporation. In his defence he would like to draw the
attention of the Court to Employment Appeals Decision U.D.
42/89 issued on the 19th July, 1989 concerning - a worker and
Dublin Corporation (details supplied to the Court). In the
decision the Tribunal found against the Corporation on both
substantial and procedural grounds and decided for
re-instatement. The worker is now seeking the same redress.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The termination of the employment of the worker concerned
was fair, reasonable and fully justified. He was clearly
guilty of abusing the Social Welfare system over the period
July, 1984 to July, 1987.
2. Using his employment as a means of defrauding the state is
a serious abuse of employment.
3. Claiming disability benefit for periods actually working
or absent from duty for reasons other than illness is a
serious abuse of the Corporation's Sick Pay Scheme. In this
connection the fact that the Social Welfare Disability Benefit
is an integral part of the Corporation's Sick Pay Scheme must
be emphasised.
4. His use of deception to obtain medical certificates of
unfitness for work in respect of periods while he worked and
proved conclusively that he was not unfit, calls into question
the credence which could be placed on any certificate covering
a period of absence by him.
5. The Corporation, as an employer, is a substantial
contributor to the cost of the state's P.R.S.I. scheme, and
the greater the abuse of the scheme the higher the level of
funding required from each employer and employee.
6. The misconduct of the worker and a number of colleagues
has caused serious damage to the reputation of the
Corporation's staff and to the public view of Corporation
employment.
7. It would seriously undermine the Corporation's efforts to
secure a reasonable and acceptable standard of behaviour from
its employees if it were to continue to employ the worker
concerned.
8. The Employment Appeals Tribunal has determined in a number
of similar cases between 1986 and 1988 (details supplied to
the Court) that the misconduct of employees justified
dismissal by the Corporation or by the other employers
concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court is of the opinion that fraudulently claiming Social
Welfare Benefit - an offence admitted by the worker concerned - is
an offence warranting dismissal. Furthermore in this case the
worker concerned made no complaint as regards the procedure under
which he was dismissed.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
27th March, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D/J.C.