Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92275 Case Number: AD92179 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: INCHICORE UNITED WORKINGMEN'S CLUB - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS',;GROCERS' AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS |
Appeal by the Club against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 115/92 concerning the decision of the Committee of the Club to dismiss 2 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful considerations to all the
submissions from the parties, examined the evidence and visited
the premises for the purpose of examining the physical and
security arrangements.
The Court had to deal with conflicting evidence in relation to
many important points.
In all the circumstances, and in particular following the
inspection of the security arrangements in the premises, the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
not unreasonable.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92275 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD17992
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INCHICORE UNITED WORKINGMEN'S CLUB
and
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS',
GROCERS' AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Club against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 115/92 concerning the decision of the
Committee of the Club to dismiss 2 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Club premises consists of a snooker room, darts area, bar
areas and meeting room. The Club is run by a Management Committee
consisting of 7 men and a Club Secretary. The Club employs
full-time workers in the bar area. The two workers concerned were
employed as bar manager and assistant bar manager respectively.
The former has approximately 8 years service and the latter has
approximately 6 years service. For a number of years there have
been discrepancies in revenue in the bar areas (details supplied
to the Court). In October, 1990 the Club engaged a professional
stock controller who discovered that the Club had a serious
problem with stock control. The Club issued verbal and written
warnings to the workers regarding the resolution to the problem
but the discrepancies continued. On 20th February, 1992 the Club
informed the workers of its decision to terminate their employment
immediately "due to mismanagement". The Union claims that the 2
workers were unfairly dismissed and placed pickets on the
premises. The Club subsequently agreed to remove the dismissals
and suspend both workers with pay from 20th February, 1992. The
dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated it
on 7th April, 1992 and issued the following recommendation on 27th
April, 1992:-
"In the light of the above I believe that the evidence just is
not there to warrant the dismissal of the 2 workers. I
therefore recommend their immediate reinstatement to the
positions they previously occupied.
I further recommend to the Committee and officers of the
Inchicore Working Mens Club that it sets about getting some
professional advice with regard to the introduction of a
watertight system for the control and accountability of bar
stocks. Such a system should be implemented as soon as it is
accepted by the Committee and both the two claimants should
be instructed into the operation of this system. Departures
from the new watertight system should not be tolerated on the
part of either the staff employed or a Committee and
officers".
(The two workers were named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
The Club appealed against the Recommendation under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on 15th June, 1992. The Court subsequently carried out an
inspection of the Club premises on 26th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The decision of the Club to dismiss the 2 workers is
unfair and not warranted. The decision is related to
discrepancies in stock control. However the 2 workers had no
chance of keeping proper stock control due to the lax system
in operation. They were not given full control of the bar
area and cannot be held responsible for the discrepancies.
They should be re-instated immediately.
2. The system of security in the bar and stock room areas was
so deficient that many explanations for the discrepancies are
possible (details supplied to the Court). The control of
stock became an impossible task for the workers concerned.
The Committee are aware of the loose system of security which
has been in the Club for a considerable length of time.
CLUB'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As there was an on-going problem in regard to revenue
discrepancies the Club engaged a professional stock controller
in October, 1990 to investigate the problem. A serious stock
control problem was discovered. The Committee set out
sourcing the problem in consultation with the 2 workers as
they had responsibility for the management of the Club and for
matters relating to stock control. Despite verbal and written
warning to the 2 workers the problem was not resolved.
Eventually the Committee decided that the situation could be
tolerated no longer and decided to dismiss the two workers.
Since the two workers were dismissed (subsequently suspended
with pay) there has been no problem whatsoever with stock
control.
2. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Union made
allegations which had not been previously raised at local
discussions on the fundamental problem. As the Club did not
have adequate opportunity to refute the allegations it is
understandable that the Rights Commissioner erred in his
findings. However the Club wishes to refute those allegations
(details supplied to the Court) which related to the system of
stock control and security. The Club Committee was at all
times careful to give the 2 workers full jurisdiction to
manage the bar area and it was their responsibility to
eliminate any loose or improper practices that existed.
DECISION:
5. The Court has given careful considerations to all the
submissions from the parties, examined the evidence and visited
the premises for the purpose of examining the physical and
security arrangements.
The Court had to deal with conflicting evidence in relation to
many important points.
In all the circumstances, and in particular following the
inspection of the security arrangements in the premises, the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
not unreasonable.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
3rd July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.