Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9192 Case Number: LCR13222 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AN POST - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues put forward
by the parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court
takes the view that throughout the period to November, 1989 the
worker concerned made little effort to resolve his problems and
ignored the advice given in his best interests.
The Court recognises the progressive policy operated by the
Company and the need of staff to recognise that it is ultimately
the responsibility of the worker with a problem to seek assistance
through the programme available. In view of the lack of
co-operation of the worker concerned the management had no
alternative but to proceed to deal with the worker concerned in
the manner they did.
Notwithstanding the above and given all the circumstances of the
case and in particular the present circumstances of the worker
concerned the Court recommends that An Post re-engage him on the
clear understanding that he has had a final warning and that any
recurrence of absenteeism will result in termination of his
services.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9192 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13222
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AN POST
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a temporary cleaner on 3rd June, 1986. He was absent for 10 days
on sick leave in 1986. His sick leave record deteriorated further
in 1987 and he received two warnings of impending dismissal if his
record did not improve. In November, 1987 he was informed that,
as his record had not improved, his dismissal was under
consideration. The worker explained that his domestic situation
was the main reason for his poor record and elaborated on the
matter to the Company's Chief Welfare Officer (C.W.O.) in
December, 1987. In early 1988 the worker contacted the C.W.O. and
informed him confidentially that, although his domestic situation
was a factor in contributing to his poor record, the main factor
was an addiction problem. At that time there had been an
improvement in the worker's record and the Company, in March,
1988, decided to defer a decision of dismissal for 6 months. The
worker's record improved over that 6 months but started to
deteriorate at the end of 1988. In May, 1989 the worker was again
informed that his dismissal was under consideration. The worker
again gave his domestic situation as the main reason for his poor
record. The worker was subsequently absent on sick leave. The
Company decided on 17th October, 1989 to dismiss the worker due to
his unsatisfactory sick absence record. The worker, having
contacted the C.W.O. on 10th October, 1989, made arrangements with
the C.W.O. to have his problem assessed on 17th October, 1989 and
subsequently underwent a course of treatment. The worker's last
day of service with the Company was 10th November, 1989. On 3rd
January, 1990 the worker submitted a written appeal against the
dismissal decision and gave his addiction problem as the main
reason for his unsatisfactory sick absence record. His appeal was
rejected on 11th April, 1990. The worker claims that he was
unfairly dismissed. The Company rejects the claim. The worker
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 25th February, 1991. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to
be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's main reason for his high sick absence record
was his addiction problem. His turbulent domestic situation
was also a contributory factor. In 1988, he contacted the
C.W.O. on his own initiative in order to get help for his
addiction problem. The C.W.O. suggested that the worker
should have treatment. The worker was anxious not to add to
his sick absence record and agreed instead to attend meetings
of an organisation which deals with his addiction problem.
The worker's sick absence improved at that time but he
gradually returned to his addiction problem which went out of
control in late 1989. The worker then realised that he needed
professional treatment and requested the assistance of the
C.W.O.
2. The worker went for an assessment of his problem in
October, 1989. Despite the fact that he received notice of
termination of employment at that time, the worker went ahead
with treatment which was completed in December, 1990. The
worker now has an insight into his problem and, if allowed to
resume duty, would give satisfactory service.
3. The loss of his job was a serious blow to the worker and
his family. He has financial commitments which are now
difficult to meet. Now that he has confronted his addiction
problem he has become a more responsible person. The worker
is aware that the Company has a policy for combating problems
similar to that of his addiction. This policy should be
applied to the worker so that he can be restored as a
functioning and reliable employee of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had a very unsatisfactory sick absence record
(details supplied to the Court). He received warnings about
the matter in 1987 and was fortunate not to be dismissed at
the end of that year. The worker got a final warning at that
stage but his sick absence record subsequently deteriorated.
He was given every opportunity to improve his sick absence
record which was unsatisfactory from the outset.
2. The Company has a policy for dealing with problems such as
the worker's. When the worker contacted the C.W.O. he was
informed of this policy which could have been applied to him.
The worker chose not to have this policy applied to him. The
Company's policy depends on the full co-operation of the
individuals concerned. If individuals fail to accept
assistance under the Company's policy they are subject to
normal disciplinary procedures.
3. The worker did not inform the Company of the main reason
for his unsatisfactory sick absence record until he appealed
against his dismissal in January, 1990. He had been given
every opportunity to inform the Company of the problem before
his dismissal. The worker did not seek treatment for his
addiction problem until confronted with dismissal. He did not
display any sense of regard for his job while employed by the
Company and proved unsuitable for employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues put forward
by the parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court
takes the view that throughout the period to November, 1989 the
worker concerned made little effort to resolve his problems and
ignored the advice given in his best interests.
The Court recognises the progressive policy operated by the
Company and the need of staff to recognise that it is ultimately
the responsibility of the worker with a problem to seek assistance
through the programme available. In view of the lack of
co-operation of the worker concerned the management had no
alternative but to proceed to deal with the worker concerned in
the manner they did.
Notwithstanding the above and given all the circumstances of the
case and in particular the present circumstances of the worker
concerned the Court recommends that An Post re-engage him on the
clear understanding that he has had a final warning and that any
recurrence of absenteeism will result in termination of his
services.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
4th April, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.