Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92156 Case Number: LCR13655 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HALLMARK CARDS IRELAND LIMITED - and - THE IRISH PRINT UNION |
Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the evidence
submitted by the parties in the dispute. The Court notes that the
appellant accepts that he committed an offence in removing timber
from the premises without permission. The Court considers that in
view of the circumstantial nature of the evidence in relation to
the other item, dismissal in this instance would be too severe,
taking into account the stated good employment record of the
appellant.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be
suspended from the 13th May, 1991 to 30th May, 1992 and that he be
re-instated from 2nd June, 1992 and be placed on Probation for a
period of 6 months. At the end of this period, if found
satisfactory, he should be fully restored in his employment but
this matter should be retained on his employment record for a
period of three years.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92156 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13655
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HALLMARK CARDS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
THE IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company in September, 1976
as a stockhandler. Up to his dismissal on 13th May, 1991, he
had worked in various departments in the Company. He had been
working in the small combined department when he was
dismissed.
2. On 2nd May, 1991, a security guard found a guillotine
blade in the bushes outside the factory. The guard removed
the blade. Shortly afterwards the worker requested permission
to leave the factory to move his car. The worker was observed
to open the boot of the car and to search in the bushes in the
area where the guard had earlier found the blade. When
challenged by the guard, the worker stated that he had left
some wood there without permission.
3. On 3rd May, the worker was requested, at a meeting with
management, to explain his behaviour (details supplied). The
Company, on 3rd May, found a bundle of wood in the bushes
where the blade had been located. The worker denied any
knowledge of the blade and restated that he had taken wood
without permission (details supplied). The worker was
suspended with full pay.
4. A further meeting took place on 13th May, 1991 with the
worker and his representatives (details supplied). The
Company decided to dismiss the worker. A Labour Court
investigation was sought in February, 1992, by the worker
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 11th May, 1992 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties). The worker agreed to
accept the recommendation of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker required a note from a manager in order to take
waste wood out of the Company. On this occasion, there was no
manager present and the worker thought nobody would miss a few
pieces of waste wood. There is no evidence to link the worker
to the guillotine blade. The other incident, while in breach
of company procedure, is not sufficiently serious to warrant
dismissal. While workers have received warnings for such a
breach of procedure in the past, no worker was ever dismissed.
2. The worker had been employed by the Company for 15 years
and his service in that time has been acknowledged by the
Company to have been good. In the last 12 months the worker
has suffered the loss his job and the resulting mental anguish
has put him under strain, affecting his family life. The
worker requested that the Gardai be called in to investigate
the allegation. This request was refused by the Company. The
fact that the Company proceeded with its own investigation
would support the contention that there was no evidence
linking the worker to the guillotine blade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 2nd May, 1991, the worker sought permission to leave
the factory for the sole purpose of moving his car. His
actual intention was to leave the premises in order to go to
the bushes opposite the guillotine area, to retrieve whatever
he had secreted there.
2. The worker had earlier left the premises without
permission, had taken Company property off the premises
without the appropriate permission and was observed searching
the bushes in the spot where the guillotine blade had been
found 15 minutes previously. The guard failed to find the
wood which the worker alleges he left in the bushes on 2nd
May, 1992. The facts point to the worker being involved in
the removal of the guillotine blade.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the evidence
submitted by the parties in the dispute. The Court notes that the
appellant accepts that he committed an offence in removing timber
from the premises without permission. The Court considers that in
view of the circumstantial nature of the evidence in relation to
the other item, dismissal in this instance would be too severe,
taking into account the stated good employment record of the
appellant.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be
suspended from the 13th May, 1991 to 30th May, 1992 and that he be
re-instated from 2nd June, 1992 and be placed on Probation for a
period of 6 months. At the end of this period, if found
satisfactory, he should be fully restored in his employment but
this matter should be retained on his employment record for a
period of three years.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________
18th May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.