Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90649 Case Number: LCR13107 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROSCREA FRESH FOODS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of two workers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court recognises that the Company were within their right
in dismissing the claimants. However the Court also considers
that the dismissal in this case was inappropriate and accordingly
recommends that the claimants be re-instated on and from the 17th
December, 1990 and the period from the date of dismissal to that
date be treated as "suspension without pay."
The Court further recommends that all employees be furnished with
a copy of the Company/Union Agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90649 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13107
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROSCREA FRESH FOODS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of two
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. One of the workers here concerned was observed by the Company
General Manager clocking three time cards after lunch on 21st
June, 1990. The three workers were interviewed separately and
together in the presence of a shop steward by management. As a
result one of the workers was instructed to resume duty and the
other two were suspended pending a full investigation by the
Company. The workers were subsequently dismissed five days later.
3. On the afternoon in question, as the workers were returning
from their lunch break, one requested the other to clock her in as
she wished to go to the toilet. The worker agreed to do this and
she also decided to clock in another colleague who was following
on behind her. (The three workers are friends and had been at
lunch together).
4. The Union objected to the dismissals and sought to have them
lifted as it considered that it was too severe a punishment and
out of all proportion to the seriousness of the alleged offence.
While not condoning the irregular clocking in of time cards the
Union considered that a warning to the workers would have been
more appropriate in this case. The Company refused to lift the
dismissal as it viewed the incident as gross misconduct. All
employees had been put on firm notice of the consequence of
breaching clocking procedures approximately 12 weeks before the
incident in question.
5. The matter along with other issues, was raised at conciliation
conferences held on 6th and 12th July, 1990. As no agreement was
reached the parties subsequently consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Nenagh on 4th December, 1990. The Court
issued its recommendation by letter dated 6th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The dismissal of the workers concerned was out of all
proportion to the seriousness of the alleged offence. The
girls were on the premises and ready to work at 2 p.m. The
Union does not condone irregular clocking of cards. In the
normal course of events, provisions in agreements (including
the Company/Union Agreement) are meant to curtail fraud by
attempting to seek payment while not at work. There is no
question of fraud in this case.
2. The workers had an outstanding record on timekeeping and
on work performance. The Union considers that a warning would
be more appropriate in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. All workers in this department were on firm notice of the
consequence of breaching clocking procedures. These matters
had been brought to the attention of all workers approximately
12 weeks prior to the incident in question. The Agreement in
existence between the parties clearly provides for a matter
such as this to be treated as gross misconduct and also the
punishment for same.
2. The Company carried out a full and fair investigation into
the matter, allowing due representation, and having considered
the matters came to its decision. The facts of the matter are
not in dispute but rather the level of punishment. The
Company does not accept that the punishment which it decided
upon was excessive. Rather, having given due warning on this
very subject the Company believes that its decision was right
and proper in every respect.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court recognises that the Company were within their right
in dismissing the claimants. However the Court also considers
that the dismissal in this case was inappropriate and accordingly
recommends that the claimants be re-instated on and from the 17th
December, 1990 and the period from the date of dismissal to that
date be treated as "suspension without pay."
The Court further recommends that all employees be furnished with
a copy of the Company/Union Agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
14th March, 1991. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.