Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91559 Case Number: AD91110 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUNFIRTH AUTISTIC COMMUNITY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 186/91 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the lengthy submissions in respect of this
case, the Court notes the objective of both management and the
Union is to provide a service of high standard to the residents of
the Community.
The Court understands that while there are many elements involved
in achieving this objective, staff attitudes and commitment are of
prime importance. The evidence at the hearing confirmed that
there was room for general improvement in this area and that the
behaviour for which the worker in question was dismissed was
symptomatic of the wider problems.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was appropriate and upholds it. The
Court further considers that Management and the Union should
formulate and negotiate without delay a comprehensive agreement
that will clarify for all staff the terms and conditions of
employment which apply to them, the code of behaviour to which
they will be expected to conform and the grievance and
disciplinary procedure which will apply.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91559 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD11091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
PARTIES: DUNFIRTH AUTISTIC COMMUNITY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 186/91 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dunfirth Autistic Community is situated on a seventy-acre farm
near Enfield, Co. Meath. It provides residential care in separate
housing units for autistic people. The Community operates as a
family run farm carrying out a wide range of traditional tasks
associated with farming.
3. The worker was first employed at the Community on an AnCO
training course from 8th October, 1987. During this time she
applied for a position in the Community. She commenced work
there, on a month's trial, from August, 1988. She subsequently
filled in for a staff member who was on leave. She joined the
staff on 12th October, 1988 for a twelve-month probationary
period. Her probationary period was extended for six months.
4. The worker was assigned to various duties during her period of
employment. On the night of 14th February, 1991 the worker was
assigned to work the night shift. During the course of the night
she visited another house to give her boy friend (who is also an
employee) a present. She had arranged cover during her absence.
The worker was dismissed with effect from 1st March, 1991, for
ignoring an instruction not to leave the house and providing
inadequate cover during her absence.
5. The Union referred the worker's claim for re-instatement to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 9th September,
1991 and on 18th September, 1991 issued the following:-
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. I am satisfied that some aspects of the worker's
performance could be deemed to cause concern on Management's
part.
2. I am also satisfied that at the time of her dismissal she
survived the extended probationary period".
and recommended:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that the worker be
engaged for a further trial period of 6 months and that her
performance during this period be most closely monitored and
that she be kept advised of her progress. If she is
successful in completing this trial period then the matter of
its continuation should be discussed between the Union and
the Management of the Community".
The worker was referred to by name by the Rights Commissioner.
6. Both parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 3rd December,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker was assigned to various duties during the
course of her employment with the Community in order to
broaden her work experience. The work is special and
demanding, and requires longer than usual on-the-job training.
There was a change of managers during the course of 1990. The
previous manager never had any complaints about her work and
in fact, on occasions, complimented her work. Her working
relationship with the present manager was initially cordial.
However the relationship deteriorated and the worker believes
this was due to a dispute her boy friend had with the manager
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker visited her boy friend for half an hour and
made adequate arrangements for cover in her absence on the
14th February, 1991. Other workers similarly visited each
others' houses during the course of their shifts.
3. The Community over-reacted in dismissing the worker and in
view of her good work record and the work practices prevailing
in the Community, she should be reinstated without any loss in
service or having to undergo a further probationary period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is impossible to
implement from a practical point of view. The basic trust
between management and the worker no longer exists. Workers
at the Community carry a high level of responsibility at all
times as the children they are dealing with are highly
dependent.
2. The worker deliberately disobeyed an instruction and in
view of her previous work record, where she had been spoken to
and assigned to various work locations (details supplied to
the Court), management can no longer employ her as the
relationship has completely broken down and is beyond repair.
3. The Community aspires to provide the best possible service
for the children in its care and expects the highest level of
responsibility and commitment from its staff.
DECISION:
9. Having considered the lengthy submissions in respect of this
case, the Court notes the objective of both management and the
Union is to provide a service of high standard to the residents of
the Community.
The Court understands that while there are many elements involved
in achieving this objective, staff attitudes and commitment are of
prime importance. The evidence at the hearing confirmed that
there was room for general improvement in this area and that the
behaviour for which the worker in question was dismissed was
symptomatic of the wider problems.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was appropriate and upholds it. The
Court further considers that Management and the Union should
formulate and negotiate without delay a comprehensive agreement
that will clarify for all staff the terms and conditions of
employment which apply to them, the code of behaviour to which
they will be expected to conform and the grievance and
disciplinary procedure which will apply.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
16th December, 1991 Chairman.
M.D./J.C.