Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93171 Case Number: LCR14144 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: INTEL IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER;WOODS AND COMPANY - SOLICITORS |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties and to the arguments submitted during the course
of oral hearings conducted in March and June.
The Court is satisfied that the nature of the incident which took
place on 3rd July, 1992 was such as to warrant dismissal
regardless of the worker's previous record.
The Court accordingly does not find that the Company acted
unfairly and therefore does not recommend concession of the claim
as made by the worker.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93171 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14144
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INTEL IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY WOODS AND COMPANY - SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company carries out a manufacturing business in
Leixlip, Co. Kildare and employs 900 workers. The worker
commenced employment as a temporary assembly operator on 9th
April, 1992. He was dismissed on 3rd July, 1992. The worker
was informed that he was being dismissed because of the
following:
(a) his poor performance
(b) his poor teamwork
(c) his brandishing of a screwdriver.
2. On the day the worker was dismissed he had replaced
another worker on the production line. He was responsible for
the fitting of the J9 component to a circuit board. Earlier
that day the number of defective boards had reached
unacceptable levels and the line had been stopped for a time.
At some stage after the worker had taken over the fitting of
the J9 components, a number of the components were found to be
defective by the inspection team. It is alleged, that at this
time the worker brandished a screwdriver at a member of the
inspection team.
3. The shift supervisor took statements from 2 members of the
inspection team and the worker. The Company decided to
dismiss the worker. He referred his claim for alleged unfair
dismissal to the Rights Commissioners' Service. The Company
refused to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation
stating that the worker had not availed himself of the
Company's in-house appeal procedure. The worker referred his
claim to the Labour Court on 9th March, 1993 under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 28th June, 1993 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties). An initial investigation on 25th
March was adjourned until 28th June to allow the worker to get
a witness. No witnesses were produced at the investigation of
28th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Poor Performance
The worker was 19 years old when recruited by the Company into
a complicated manufacturing environment. It is acknowledged
by the Company that it takes time to become familiar with the
process. The worker had only 12 weeks' service with the
Company when he was dismissed. This included limited training
opportunities.
2. The worker had a meeting with the shift supervisor
regarding his work performance a few weeks after he commenced
work. A number of shortcomings were pointed out to him and he
undertook to examine his performance in these areas. The
number of defects found in the worker's work were
substantially reduced in the months of May and June. This has
been acknowledged by the Company and at a later meeting with
the shift supervisor the worker was advised that he would be
considered for a team leader position. The worker "qualified
the work" which he was doing (details supplied) which
indicates that he achieved a high standard of quality in his
work. The Company was satisfied that the worker was
performing well.
3. Poor Team Work
The Company has submitted no evidence that the worker was a
poor team member other than an unsubstantiated reference to
offensive sexual comments to a female co-worker. The worker
worked as part of a team of 12 on 12 hour shifts. He got on
well with his colleagues at all times and no complaints were
made to the worker at any stage.
4. Brandishing of a Screwdriver
On 3rd July, 1992, there was a problem with a large number of
J-9 components which were found to be defective. On taking
over from another worker on the line, the worker was conscious
of the defects and started taking the numbers of the boards on
which he fitted J-9 components. After a time a defective J-9
was discovered at inspection. The worker was able to clarify
that it was not one of his. At a later stage another
defective board was discovered and the worker went up to the
inspection area.
5. An argument began (details supplied) between the worker
and a worker in the inspection area. As the argument
developed the worker became agitated and began waving his arms
about. The worker had a screwdriver in his hand which he
required for his work. The worker did not threaten his
colleague and this is consistent with the written statements
of the shift supervisor (details supplied).
6. The worker does not feel that he has a case to answer
because of alleged poor performance and poor teamwork. The
Company made no attempt to fully investigate the screwdriver
incident or to seek a statement from a third witness (details
supplied) who would corroborate the worker's version of events
(details supplied). The Company did not inform the worker
that he could use the in-house appeals procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Poor Performance
The worker came to adverse notice immediately following the
commencement of his employment. The worker's level of
performance and quality of work was unacceptable. He was
spoken to in this regard on a number of occasions in May,
1992. No improvement was forthcoming and a formal meeting was
held on 6th June, 1992. The worker was warned of the
necessity to improve his performance if his employment was to
continue (details supplied). Following this meeting some
improvement was noted.
2. Poor Teamwork
The worker was informed at various times in May, 1992 that he
was creating conflict within his team. The team maintains
records of all defects on a daily basis and each team member
is responsible for his/her own defects. The worker had a
consistently high defect rating (details supplied) and found
difficulty in taking constructive criticism from team members
(details supplied). The smooth operation of a team is
essential and team-work is at the core of the Company's
manufacturing operation.
3. Brandishing of a Screwdriver
On 3rd July, 1992 the worker was accused of brandishing a
screwdriver in a violent and threatening manner at a
co-worker's face. The shift supervisor took written
statements from the worker and 2 of his co-workers (details
supplied). The worker acknowledged that he brandished the
screwdriver.
4. The incident was regarded by the Company with the utmost
gravity and dismissal was the only appropriate course of
action to take. The worker's level of incompetence coupled
with the screwdriver incident were such as to merit dismissal.
The screwdriver incident was such as to utterly destroy the
team-work culture which the Company sought to maintain.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties and to the arguments submitted during the course
of oral hearings conducted in March and June.
The Court is satisfied that the nature of the incident which took
place on 3rd July, 1992 was such as to warrant dismissal
regardless of the worker's previous record.
The Court accordingly does not find that the Company acted
unfairly and therefore does not recommend concession of the claim
as made by the worker.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
22nd July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.