Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9217 Case Number: LCR13565 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KRUPS ENGINEERING - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the re-instatement of two dismissed workers.
Recommendation:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that
the Company had little option but to take the action it did. In
view of the total breakdown of relationships between the two
claimants the Court finds that it could not recommend in favour
of the Union's claim for re-instatement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9217 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13565
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KRUPS ENGINEERING
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the re-instatement of two dismissed
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures electrical appliances and is
located in Limerick. The two workers concerned were employed as
security officers with 7 years and 13 years service
respectively. On 25th July, 1991 both workers were involved in
a verbal and physical confrontation with each other in the
reception area of the Company's premises (details supplied to
the Court). Both workers were suspended on 26th July, 1991
pending on investigation by the Company. On 9th August, 1991
both workers were dismissed for gross misconduct in breach of
the Company/Union Agreement. The Union claims that the penalty
of dismissal is unfair. The general manager of the Company
rejected an appeal on behalf of the two workers against their
dismissal, which was heard on 12th August, 1991. The matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 14th August,
1991. A conciliation conference was held on 10th October, 1991
at which no agreement was reached. On 6th January, 1992 the
Labour Relations Commission referred the dispute to the Labour
court for investigation in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th February, 1992 and issued a recommendation by
letter on 21st February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The punishment of dismissal is too severe and is out
of character with past Company policy. Similar incidents
have occurred over the years (details supplied to the
Court) but they have not warranted dismissal. The
Company's policy has been to impose a period of suspension
rather than dismissal. There is no reason why the two
workers concerned in this case should be treated any
differently.
2. No other party including the Company suffered as a
result of the incident concerned. Both workers have
suffered greatly as a result of their dismissal. Their
loss of employment for 6 months is more than enough
punishment and they should be re-instated by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. Under the present Company/Union agreement the Company
has the right to dismiss an employee without notice for
offences involving physical violence. When the particular
incident occurred the workers concerned were suspended
pending investigation by the Company. Statements in
relation to the incident were obtained and the workers were
dealt with fairly through the normal industrial relations
procedures. After due consideration the Company felt it
had no alternative but to dismiss both workers.
2. The Company took a very serious view of the incident
as it involved security personnel. Security officers are
placed in a position of trust and are expected to strictly
uphold standards of good behaviour. In view of the nature
of the incident and subsequent observations the Company
feels that both workers are no longer acceptable as
security officers.
3. The Company has investigated the precedents involving
similar incidents. There is a precedent for the dismissal
of a security officer for fighting. The Company was
correct in dismissing the two security officers and asks
the Court to uphold this decision.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that
the Company had little option but to take the action it did. In
view of the total breakdown of relationships between the two
claimants the Court finds that it could not recommend in favour
of the Union's claim for re-instatement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
9th March, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.