Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91143 Case Number: LCR13264 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MURRAYS EUROPCAR LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
"In the light of the above I recommend that the written
warning of July, 1989 should be expunged from the
workers record. I further recommend that the suspension
imposed in March, 1989 should be converted to a final
written warning to the worker. Therefore the worker
should be reimbursed for any losses incurred due to the
suspension of March, 1990. I would urge the worker to
make sure that he acts at all times with consideration
towards his colleagues otherwise a repetition of the
previous incident will only result in him placing his
livelihood in jeopardy."
4. The Company accepted the recommendation. The Union
appealed it to the Labour Court but the Court upheld the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation. In accordance with the
Rights Commissioner's findings the Company issued the worker
with a final written warning. The final incident leading to
the worker's dismissal occurred on the 30th November, 1990
(details supplied to the Court).
5. The Company employs 110 workers. The average length of
employment is 32 years. The Company has always had a first
class record in staff relations over the past 50 years and has
never had a strike. The worker concerned was fairly dismissed
because of his:-
1. Totally unsatisfactory employment record.
2. His ongoing attitude, behaviour and conduct towards
management, supervisors and other members of staff.
3. Final warning and the dismissal incident which was
the last straw.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances of this case it is the
opinion of the Court that relations between the worker concerned
and his employers have irrevocably broken down and that no useful
purpose would be served by any recommendation which implied
possible reinstatement however conditional.
That being said, taking into account the employee's health
problem, which only became known during the course of the hearing
and which to an extent may have accounted for the behaviour which
led to his dismissal, and also taking into account his length of
service the Court instead recommends that he be paid the sum of
#17,500. The Court further recommends that representatives of the
Company and the worker meet to arrange the most appropriate method
of payment of this sum, in a manner most beneficial to the worker
concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91143 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13264
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: MURRAYS EUROPCAR 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 has been employed by the Company as an
accounts clerk for the past twenty two years. He was dismissed in
November, 1990 for refusing to obey an instruction from the
accounts manager. There have been a number of incidents in recent
years involving the worker concerned and his supervisors and
fellow workers. They have resulted in verbal and written
warnings. In October, 1990 the Labour Court issued a decision in
an appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation concerning a final written warning (AD4890 refers).
The Union is disputing the workers dismissal and claims that it is
unfair and that the worker should be reinstated. Management has
rejected the Union's claim stating that the worker's dismissal was
fair and that it was the culmination of a long history of
reprimands, warnings and suspensions over the years. The dispute
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 12th December, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on
the 16th January, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The issue
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 28th February, 1991. A Court hearing was
held on 15th April, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All the issues complained of by Management in their letter
of 17th December, 1990 (details supplied to the Court) have
been effectively dealt with under the agreed disciplinary
procedure.
2. The final incident leading to the worker's dismissal was
of a trivial nature. He was dismissed for insisting on taking
his morning tea break in a standing position. By any
draconian standards this could not be regarded as an offence
let alone one that could lead to the dismissal of a worker
with twenty two years' service.
It is fairly apparent from reading the worker's employment
record that there is a serious underlying factor in the
abrasive relationship that has existed between the Employer
and the worker concerned. It has now been confirmed that the
worker has a serious medical problem.
3. It is an irony that arising from the worker's dismissal it
has been possible to have his medical problem identified and
treated - something that should have been done years ago.
Management never once considered that the worker's problem
might have been a medical rather than an industrial relations
one. Every single incident that has occurred over the years
can be attributed to the worker's medical condition. It is
unfair and unreasonable that a worker with such long service,
suffering from a serious medical condition, should be
dismissed on the basis of the reasons given.
4. It is of the utmost importance that the worker be
reinstated. The best incentive for him to get better is the
sure knowledge that he can regain his place in society, that
he can become self sufficient and feel that he is doing
something worthwhile. Take away his job and the medical
problem may be compounded. It is freely acknowledged that the
number of incidents that have arisen over the years leave the
Employer with a sense of frustration but that still does not
validate the action taken because of a simple incident.
6. The Union is requesting the Court to recommend that the
worker concerned be reinstated, that his period out of work
since last November be regarded as sick leave and that he
would only return to work after he is cleared by the doctors.
The possibility of paying sick pay for some or all of the
period would merit consideration.
7. If at some stage in the future it became apparent that
either a recovery is not likely or that the Employer cannot
hold open the job, the parties should meet to discuss the
solution or revert to the Court for a recommendation on that
specific issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employment record of the worker concerned shows
various incidents of assault, suspensions, reprimands,
confrontational behaviour arguments and disputes (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The managerial supervisory and clerical staff found
themselves in constant conflict with the worker. There were
numerous complaints about his attitude and behaviour from
other members of staff. At one stage one of the accounts
staff told the Company that legal action was being
contemplated against the Company on the grounds that the other
workers should not have to work in the abusive and
confrontational atmosphere created by the worker concerned.
3. One of the most recent incidents involved objectionable
remarks by the worker concerned to other members of staff on
the 28th July, 1989. He was issued with a written warning
about these remarks. The Union appealed the warning to a
Rights Commissioner. Before the Commissioner heard the case a
further incident took place and the worker concerned was
suspended for four and a half days. The Rights Commissioner
investigated both incidents and issued the following
recommendation:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that the written
warning of July, 1989 should be expunged from the
workers record. I further recommend that the suspension
imposed in March, 1989 should be converted to a final
written warning to the worker. Therefore the worker
should be reimbursed for any losses incurred due to the
suspension of March, 1990. I would urge the worker to
make sure that he acts at all times with consideration
towards his colleagues otherwise a repetition of the
previous incident will only result in him placing his
livelihood in jeopardy."
4. The Company accepted the recommendation. The Union
appealed it to the Labour Court but the Court upheld the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation. In accordance with the
Rights Commissioner's findings the Company issued the worker
with a final written warning. The final incident leading to
the worker's dismissal occurred on the 30th November, 1990
(details supplied to the Court).
5. The Company employs 110 workers. The average length of
employment is 32 years. The Company has always had a first
class record in staff relations over the past 50 years and has
never had a strike. The worker concerned was fairly dismissed
because of his:-
1. Totally unsatisfactory employment record.
2. His ongoing attitude, behaviour and conduct towards
management, supervisors and other members of staff.
3. Final warning and the dismissal incident which was
the last straw.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances of this case it is the
opinion of the Court that relations between the worker concerned
and his employers have irrevocably broken down and that no useful
purpose would be served by any recommendation which implied
possible reinstatement however conditional.
That being said, taking into account the employee's health
problem, which only became known during the course of the hearing
and which to an extent may have accounted for the behaviour which
led to his dismissal, and also taking into account his length of
service the Court instead recommends that he be paid the sum of
#17,500. The Court further recommends that representatives of the
Company and the worker meet to arrange the most appropriate method
of payment of this sum, in a manner most beneficial to the worker
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________________
22nd April, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.